Combat Tracker Effect Visibility Options for the 5E Ruleset

[LordEntrails]

IMO, I don't think the die rolls should be hidden. I will agree it is a grey line, hiding die modifiers, but not adv/dis is a judgement call. But, I guess IMO when you attack someone, something a PC does regularly, they should know if something isn't working correctly.

I may not know I'm drunk, but when I try to do something I do all the time, and fall over or otherwise fail at it, I've got a good idea that I'm not doing things normally.

All that said, it's awesome that we GMs have more options to run the games the way we each feels or wants to run our games. Thanks for this, all of you developers

[Nickademus]

As long as you take that stupid "Automatic Miss" and "Automatic Hit" out, I'll be happy. I'm tired of the players finding out what bonus the roll has just because I rolled a 20 or 1.

[Minty23185Fresh]

There is no doubt this extension causes the game to ask more of the GM. The additional visibility options require more Combat Tracker management by the GM, there’ll be more questions by the players, and I’d argue more role playing by the GM might be required.

So, does this extension add “flavor” to the game? In my opinion, and obviously I’d think this, it does. I’ll take on the extra GM duties because the extension provides extra options for me to take advantage of when running my campaigns.

[Minty23185Fresh]

Just a quick note to let any followers of this thread know that I have not dropped the ball on this. As Zacchaeus point out:

Indeed, ....... This is getting very complicated though.

It has taken me quite a bit of time to decipher things and get some base coding in place.

Here's the setup, there are four chat windows pasted together in the following screenshot. All are labelled by character in red. Krystryd attacked the Orc. She has two effects, an ATK at +3, visible by her only (and the GM) and she's intoxicated but that's visible only to the GM.

Attachment 14768

Note that no mention of the effects are made in Jimmy's nor the Paladin's chats. The +3 (Self) is shown in Krystryd's and the GM's chats. The fact that the roll was at disadvantage is shown only in the GM's chat.

For the disadvantage roll the two rolling dice are shown, I didn't hide them, consistent with what LordEntrails suggests:

IMO, I don't think the die rolls should be hidden. I will agree it is a grey line, hiding die modifiers, but not adv/dis is a judgement call.........

There are quite a few variations of effect that I need to support plus I just realized damage rolls also give away hidden effects... Aargh! But I am chipping away at it.

[Smoltok]

Hi,

Just one (silly?) question about this extension.

Is it possible to give the visible button the correct value while the effect triggers or the GM has to do it in the Combat Tracker ?

[Minty23185Fresh]

Is it possible to give the visible button the correct value while the effect triggers or the GM has to do it in the Combat Tracker ?

Certainly possible, I think, most anything is.

I've been contemplating changing some of the defaults for the conditionals, e.g. "Prone". With prone, it is nearly always obvious that the afflicted character is prone, except I guess if he/she is invisible too. So maybe a default of VSBL for prone is more appropriate. But I suspect this isn't what you're talking about.

Since I'm unsure as to what you have in mind exactly, would it be possible for you to provide an example, it might help?

[Smoltok]

Since I'm unsure as to what you have in mind exactly, would it be possible for you to provide an example, it might help?

When you create an effet, have you the possibility to put the visible button directly in the state you want (GM, SELF, ALL, ...)? If so, how could I do it ?

[Minty23185Fresh]

When you create an effect, have you the possibility to put the visible button directly in the state you want (GM, SELF, ALL, ...)? If so, how could I do it ?

The short answer is no. Not at this time. Provided I understand what you are asking, I find the concept intriguing.

Here is the long answer, to the question you're asking, as I understand it:

First, only the GM can control the Combat Tracker Effect Visibility. Allowing players to adjust visibility would defeat the entire premise behind the creation of this extension - that being, the ability for the GM to hide "the announcement" of an effect from players. The player character may still be afflicted with some effect, he/she just doesn't know it.

Now, as a GM:
(1) I inflict effects using the Effects Manager (one of the buttons in the upper right corner of the FG desktop) to apply, for example "Poisoned". I typically do this by just dragging the button/icon from the Effects Manager on to the PC in the Combat Tracker. In which case the Effect Visibility Button is right there.

(2) I also use the Effects Add button in the Combat Tracker, so again the Effects Visibility button is right there.

(3) Or I can apply an effect during combat, by dragging the effect from the NPC's Actions on to another character (for example the Giant Spider in the 5E Sample Campaign has the [EFF: Paralyzed] effect). But the Combat Tracker Effect Visibility button is still right there.

Is there another way that doesn't involve the Combat Tracker, that I have missed?

Back to the question... Possibly you are asking if there is some option available that would set the Effect Visibility button when say the [EFF: Paralyzed] effect is dropped on someone. Say something like [EFF: Paralyzed, CTEV_TRGT ], the additional qualifier specifies the initial button setting.

If I have properly gleaned the concept behind your question, again the answer is no. But I do like the idea and would certainly entertain the possibility of adding this functionality in the future. With the caveat of course that any such qualifiers attempted by players would probably be ignored.

[Minty23185Fresh]

The purpose of this post is to solicit input. Please respond with suggestions and criticisms!

When I first started this, I thought, a little change here, a little change there and, Done! Not so. This is incredibly complex to implement. Moon Wizard hinted at it - he should have hit me over the head, been a little less gentle . Thanks though, I’m glad you didn’t. If Combat Tracker Effect Visibility (CTEV) optioning is really coming out in v3.2.0, I can’t wait to see it!!

Aside from the difficulty of implementation, I never fathomed the inconsistencies that have to be addressed. In particular, hiding dice throws. Earlier in this thread hiding Advantage/Disadvantage dice throws is discussed. Damage throws introduce another level of possible inconsistency.

Consider the following screenshot, Krystryd makes a damage throw with the listed Effects. (This is shown without the extension being used.)

Attachment 14978

Ideally, the CTEV extension would not report the “[TYPE: acid, fire (1d6+2=7)]” and the “[TYPE: lightning, fire (1d8+1=7)]” damages to anyone but the GM.

To complicate it, let’s say the other two effects are of SELF. Then the extension should only show the “slashing” damage to most players, and the “slashing” plus the “cold, acid” and “piercing” damage to Krystryd. The GM of course see all of them.

However, five dice are rolled! Somebody is going to ask, “What the heck is going on? Why were five dice rolled?” Personally, I see no other way of dealing with this other than to hide dice. Okay, so I hide dice! Now, do I show, one die (the slashing) to most players, three dice to Krystryd and five dice to the GM. Yikes, this becomes ugly.

For me the assessed damage to the orc is a little less problematic since I use the “Status” setting instead of the “Detailed” setting for Non-Ally Health in the Options Manager. The players can’t view the damage just the health as it is actually applied. Which lends itself to yet another inconsistency. In this scenario with the CTEV extension most players would observe “[TYPE: slashing (1d8+3=9)]” = 9hp of reported damage. Krystryd would observe 9+9+5=23hp of reported damage. And the GM would see 37hp. Because 37hp are applied, the orc will die, yet most player only know of 9hp? Some players are going to remark, “Wow! That was a pretty weak orc!”

At this point in time, I am question the intelligence of my original premise, whether or not implementing this practice is really feasible.

[LordEntrails]

*lol* I'm laughing with you. You are laughing aren't you?