DICE PACKS BUNDLE
Page 15 of 100 First ... 513141516172565 ... Last
  1. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by darrenan View Post
    Oh ok. I thought sneak attack and so forth were built into FORTIF. Where is the definitive documentation on that effect? In this thread at the top?
    Ah, I see It works like RESIST etc., so, one needs to specifiy the specific damage type (but yes, in that case one could have a built-in integration of critical and precision when just following the standard rules). Yes, the documentation is either in the thread of advanced 3.5e and PF1, https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...finder-effects, there I wrote (I shortly edited it, there was some strange not finished sentence seemingly )
    1. To apply fortification use: 'FORTIF: (N) [damage type]' or 'FORTIF: (N) all' (N) is some arbitrary number describing the percentage and damage type is as usual. E.g. when you want light fortification, then your effect is 'FORTIF: 25 critical; FORTIF: 25 precision'. But you can use any other number and any other damage type if you have any house rules for different fortification rules When fortification is executed you will see a message in the chat showing you the roll result(s) and if it was a success or failure The applied damage is modified accordingly. Any combination of damage types should works as expected when one "naturally extends" the rules.
    I also have a pdf here, https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post452700 (the bottom), there I list all my effects etc. as in the wiki, at least I try There it is on page 2:

    FORTIF (N) [damage type], all (T), fortification with percentage N against a specific damage type
    I think the latter contains all informations of the effect

  2. #142
    Will FORTIF respect damage types that aren't in the 'official' list i.e. arbitrary damage type strings? Or does it check against the damage types collection data_common.lua?

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by darrenan View Post
    Will FORTIF respect damage types that aren't in the 'official' list i.e. arbitrary damage type strings? Or does it check against the damage types collection data_common.lua?
    Only the ones in data_common.lua you need it against arbitrary strings?

  4. #144
    Hi

    There was some small hotfix today for 3.5e/PF1 (see https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...176#post530176), and I needed to update everything containing save versus tags, please redownload packages with save versus tags (and/or save versus tags itself) But it is a small fix for some edge case of custom DCs, so, you do not necessarily need this. Also no worries about bad things going on, when you do not have that hotfix immediately

  5. #145
    Switched to FullOverlays. Awesome stuff. Should have been using it sooner.

    Thanks as always.

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by bmos View Post
    Switched to FullOverlays. Awesome stuff. Should have been using it sooner.

    Thanks as always.
    Thanks

  7. #147
    I just noticed that additional tags in spells are getting populated with a missing delimiter. I'm pretty sure that logic is in your extensions right? Anyway, here's a screenshot of what I'm talking about:

    missing delimiter.jpg

    Notice the missing semi-colon between mind-affecting and one. This is a spell I dragged from the "PFRPG - Spellbook" module. Please tell me I don't need to go back through all the NPCs I've prepped recently and fix them?

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by darrenan View Post
    I just noticed that additional tags in spells are getting populated with a missing delimiter. I'm pretty sure that logic is in your extensions right? Anyway, here's a screenshot of what I'm talking about:

    missing delimiter.jpg

    Notice the missing semi-colon between mind-affecting and one. This is a spell I dragged from the "PFRPG - Spellbook" module. Please tell me I don't need to go back through all the NPCs I've prepped recently and fix them?
    No worries, that is fine You do not need a semi-colon, that was legacy of an old code where this was needed, but now a space for separating tags is fine, too This is due to the last update after which it is now possible that tags are also parsed when it is a custom spell with custom actions. (For some reason: An if-clause for checking, whether or not a semicolon should be added, did not work, therefore I decided to simply use a space But that is just something visual, it is still working as usual )

  9. #149
    In the last update I also wrote it:

    Possible new tags will then be added at the end of all the tags, separated with a space (the semicolon approach looked strange in general); that is just something visual, separating with a space is also okay when it is about automation. The semicolon was just legacy
    It may be not visually appealing, but it works as expected (I just tested, tags separated by spaces are recognized as different tags, too )

  10. #150
    ok, cool, thanks

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Log in