creating a +1 striking hammer of disrutpion

[Larsenex]

Shaderaven,

I need to make a warhammer for a champion who at sixth level owns a +1 hammer with striking and disruption. What field do i put 'disrupting' under or is it disruption?

Thanks.

[Willot]

Like this; COPY the text in the "Effects" row on to the PC in the combat tracker
Annotation 2020-04-11 094801.jpg
THe DM would have to place the enfeebled condition onto the undead.

You could also set it up as a "spell" on the character sheet

That's a high weapon for a level 6! LOL (my level 6s have only just now been allowed to put points on the end of their sticks!!!)

[Larsenex]

The Paladin could have a normal +1 striking warhamer (at 6th level).

As his deific weapon he can also make it disrupting. All legal. He is joining an existing campaign so The weapon should be legal and valid.

By the way>> Thanks as always Willot. You really help my game. Thank you.

[Larsenex]

Willot, this works! I just have to remember to paste that effect on his effects part in the combat tracker! Thanks again!

[Trenloe]

Remember to change the bonus of the item to 1.

See the the Wiki. https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/...PG2_Item_Sheet

[Larsenex]

Just an update. The field works in the Combat tracker but it is being applied to all targets not just Undead. Is the script written as Wilot posted above supposed to only work on Undead and exclude other targets?

[Larsenex]

Ok after testing in FG I figured out that IFT is the exclusionary tag and youi must type in "type' followed by the paranthensis of the type excluded. The example Wilot provides is perfect. I did not have the syntax exactly. I must have had a space between the IFT: type (Undead) > It should be IFT:type (Undead); DMG: 1d6 positive

[Larsenex]

I also discovered that the ( ! ) seems to not be working as intended. For example. If you use that hammer ( a bludgeoning, magic weapon but not adamantine) against an alchemical golem, the golem will resist all damage. The hammer has the tag Bludgeoning and the golem is to resist 12 physical,!adamantine,!bludgeonining.

Does this mean the hammer has to also be adamantine? My reading from the bestiary says either tag (adamantine or bludgeoning) will bypass the damage reduction of 12. Is this the case or is FG calculating correctly?

[Trenloe]

I also discovered that the ( ! ) seems to not be working as intended. For example. If you use that hammer ( a bludgeoning, magic weapon but not adamantine) against an alchemical golem, the golem will resist all damage. The hammer has the tag Bludgeoning and the golem is to resist 12 physical,!adamantine,!bludgeonining.

Does this mean the hammer has to also be adamantine? My reading from the bestiary says either tag (adamantine or bludgeoning) will bypass the damage reduction of 12. Is this the case or is FG calculating correctly?

It's because of this ruleset issue with the golem magic immunity: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post492652

[Larsenex]

Thanks Trenloe. I figured it was something.

I was just using the Golem as random monster while testing the undead exclusionary tag on the combat tracker. I figured that out and discovered the Golem one.