Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. #11
    Wouldn't there be an issue where multiple effects applied from the same spell would incorrectly double up on the effects?

    Just curious what kind of multiple effects you are applying?

    Thanks,
    JPG

  2. #12
    LordEntrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    GMT -7
    Posts
    7,441
    Blog Entries
    9
    Depends on the spell right? Something like sleep or paralyze can't double up. But a dispel would only affect one of the instances of the spell effect that someone is under. Would have to be careful with something like mage armor or another buff because those don't stack, but the same concern for duration or dispel would be valid (imo).

    Current Projects: Ultimate Undermountain (NYDUM)
    Community Contributions: Gemstones, 5E Quick Ref Decal, Adventure Module Creation, Dungeon Trinkets
    DMsGuild Content: Balance Disturbed (Adventure), Dungeon Room Descriptions
    FG Product Reviews: Virtual Scribe Reviews

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
    ... is this the point you tell us you're going to put it back? Because that would be awesome ;-)
    I could, in theory. I actually don't tend the Remove Effects extension; Trenloe does. Though he may be dropping it in which case I would pick it back up.

    In reality, he chose not to include the STACK code when he extracted the REMOVE code from my original extension. I'm not sure why, but if there is a good reason then I probably wouldn't splice the STACK and MULTI tags back into the PF version.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon Wizard View Post
    Wouldn't there be an issue where multiple effects applied from the same spell would incorrectly double up on the effects?

    Just curious what kind of multiple effects you are applying?

    Thanks,
    JPG
    I'm sure there is always cases that will cause problems, but I believe the stacking rules that FG enforces would take care of some of that. Otherwise, the stacking might be intentional.

    In a nutshell, here is how they work:
    REMOVE:
    FG searches the target for the effect following the colon and removes it.

    STACK:
    FG searches the target for the effect following the colon with a number in front of it. If it doesn't find it, FG adds the effect with a '1 ' in front. If it does find it, FG removes the effect, adds 1 to the number and adds the effect preceded by the new number. For example, "STACK: Mirror image" would at first add the effect '1 Mirror image'. Clicking again would remove that effect and add the effect '2 Mirror image', and so on.

    The REMOVE tag, when used as 'REMOVE: STACK:', would do the opposite, decreasing the preceding number by one or removing the effect if only '1' was found.

    MULTI:
    FG searches the target for the effect following the colon with a number and semicolon in front of it. If it doesn't find it, FG adds the effect with a '1; ' in front. If it does find it, FG adds 1 to the number and adds the effect again this time preceded by the new number and a semicolon. For example, say an ability gave a +1 bonus to attack rolls for every enemy within 5'. The effect "MULTI: ATK: 1" could be used to do this by clicking it number of times equal to the enemies. The first would add "1; ATK: 1", the second click would add "2; ATK: 1", the third click would add "3; ATK: 1", and so on. All the bonuses would stack and apply to the attack roll.

    This was mostly designed for stacking modifiers from the same source that would expend on roll. The REMOVE tag couldn't remove these due to complications not worth working through.
    I never claimed to be sane. Besides, it's more fun this way.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by LordEntrails View Post
    Depends on the spell right? Something like sleep or paralyze can't double up. But a dispel would only affect one of the instances of the spell effect that someone is under. Would have to be careful with something like mage armor or another buff because those don't stack, but the same concern for duration or dispel would be valid (imo).
    We are talking about the 3.5e/PF ruleset (5e ruleset allows multiple similar effects already), in which mage armor adds 'AC: 4 armor' which is an armor bonus and wouldn't stack with itself. PF is good about typing almost all the bonuses so that stacking is dealt with internally.
    I never claimed to be sane. Besides, it's more fun this way.

  5. #15
    Trenloe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, USA (for a bit)
    Posts
    22,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickademus View Post
    In reality, he chose not to include the STACK code when he extracted the REMOVE code from my original extension. I'm not sure why...
    Because I was creating a remove effects extension, nothing else - the goal was to keep it as small as possible to ease maintenance and so I didn't include any non-remove code.


    FG Product Development status: Pathfinder Playtest Ruleset and add-ons: In development. Pathfinder Bestiary, Pathfinder Bestiary 2, Pathfinder Bestiary 3 (in store).

    Private Messages: My inbox is forever filling up with PMs. Please don't send me PMs unless they are actually private/personal messages. General FG questions should be asked in the forums - don't be afraid, the FG community don't bite and you're giving everyone the chance to respond and learn!

  6. #16
    I figured as much. (Though I do feel the need to point out there was REMOVE STACK code in there.) :P
    I never claimed to be sane. Besides, it's more fun this way.

  7. #17
    Okay, I whipped up a version of the PF Remove Effect extension that has all three of the tags (REMOVE, STACK, and MULTI). It is updated to FG v.3.3.2 and uses my new extension format to be resilient to future updates. Here's a screenshot of it in action.
    tags example.jpg
    I will talk to Trenloe about releasing this to the public. Don't want to step on any toes.
    I never claimed to be sane. Besides, it's more fun this way.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Posts
    2,868
    Nickademus, you are awesome!

  9. #19
    I never claimed to be sane. Besides, it's more fun this way.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in