5E - Aura Effects Coding

[MrDDT]

Zandel, would you be able to describe what the second effect line of your dual paladin solution does. Do both Paladins add those same lines to their aura cast?

Its pretty sloppy solution but what it does is detects another (known) paladins aura that is also providing it and will reduce the save down by that amount of the other pally's aura.

So without that line, both pally's auras will give +8 to saves, (one is +5, the other is +3), however, if someone has both auras on them with this extra coding, it will make it +5, +3, and -3 to saves. Thus still giving the benefit of the higher aura.

This is a really custom fix for it and you need to know ahead of time the bonus the lower pally's aura causes, and the name of the other pally's aura as a special coded name.

[alvaconklin]

Coding for Martial Advantage for Hobgoblins

Requires Better Combat Effects, Turn Based Effects and Aura Effects

Both effects must be on each hobgoblin:

TURNDS; TURNAE; AURA: 5 foe; IF: FACTION(foe); Martial Advantage;

IFT: CUSTOM(Martial Advantage); DMG: 2d6; ONTURN

Have not figured out how to not get martial advantage from attacks of opportunity but this covers most cases.

[Tatas]

Thanks MrDDT, for your help on forums, Discord, and on this. The math definitely makes sense now as do the effects. Once I played around with them a little it all came together. I was missing the fact that you needed the second effect to be placed on all friendly characters on the CT. Once that happened all things worked as expected. I've got Aura of Devotion, Aura of Protection (2 Paladins), Aura of Warding, and Pass without Trace all working now.

[hazeyindahead]

Hello,

I tried Twilight Sanctuary; AURA: 30 friend; Twilight Sanctuary; TREGENE: 1d6+1 and it didnt apply any temp HP.

I also tried Twilight Sanctuary; AURA: 30 friend; Twilight Sanctuary; TEMPO: 1d6+2 and it didnt apply any temp HP when entering the aura... Any help?

EDIT: It turns out the first one works just fine, you just need to pass turns for it to take effect

[FKZechs]

Paladin - Aura of Conquest (requires BCE)

AURA: 10 foe; Aura of Conquest; IFT: Frightened; Movement:0; DMGOE: 3 psychic (half your level rounded down)

Aasimar (Scourge) - Radiant Consumption (requires BCE)

AURA: 10 all; Radiant Consumption; DMGOE: 3 radiant (half your level rounded up)

Hope these help

[MrDDT]

Paladin - Aura of Conquest (requires BCE)

AURA: 10 foe; Aura of Conquest; IFT: Frightened; Movement:0; DMGOE: 3 psychic (half your level rounded down)

Aasimar (Scourge) - Radiant Consumption (requires BCE)

AURA: 10 all; Radiant Consumption; DMGOE: 3 radiant (half your level rounded up)

Hope these help

Thanks for the post but let me update it maybe with a bit better coding.

AURA: 10 foe; Aura of Conquest; IF: Frightened; Movement = 0; DMGO: [HLVL] psychic

AURA: 10 all; Radiant Consumption; SDMGOE: 3 radiant (half your level rounded up)

[FKZechs]

Thanks very much MrDDT, definitely appreciate the help. Can I ask why we would use IF instead of IFT? My understanding is that using IF would make it look at whether the character was frightened not the enemy. When I tested it with IFT it worked perfectly.

[bmos]

Thanks very much MrDDT, definitely appreciate the help. Can I ask why we would use IF instead of IFT? My understanding is that using IF would make it look at whether the character was frightened not the enemy. When I tested it with IFT it worked perfectly.

That is because the section "Aura of Conquest; IF: Frightened; Movement:0; DMGO: [HLVL] psychic" goes onto the recipients of the aura
You should probably write it as:
AURA: 10 foe; IF: FACTION(notself); Aura of Conquest; IF: Frightened; Movement:0; DMGO: [HLVL] psychic

so that the person with the aura doesn't get those penalties if they are frightened.

[MrDDT]

Thanks very much MrDDT, definitely appreciate the help. Can I ask why we would use IF instead of IFT? My understanding is that using IF would make it look at whether the character was frightened not the enemy. When I tested it with IFT it worked perfectly.

IF is looking for things on self, IFT is used for when it's looking for something on a target. In this case the Aura effect is on the creature already, it needs to look at itself to make sure it has whatever is on the IF statement.

I'm not exactly sure why IFT works, however, it really shouldn't.

Give you an example. If you did extra damage when you were targeting something, that would be IFT, if you did extra damage while you were raging, it would be IF.

This Aura is putting an effect on other creatures, it doesn't need to check to see if other creatures have the effect to put the aura effect on it, it needs to check if the creature that has the effect on it, will fit the IF statement.

I hope that clears it up. It is a little confusing and even weirder when it's working also with IFT, but it should be an IF. Better to have it right in case something gets fixed later, then it's already correct.

[MrDDT]

That is because the section "Aura of Conquest; IF: Frightened; Movement:0; DMGO: [HLVL] psychic" goes onto the recipients of the aura
You should probably write it as:
AURA: 10 foe; IF: FACTION(notself); Aura of Conquest; IF: Frightened; Movement:0; DMGO: [HLVL] psychic

so that the person with the aura doesn't get those penalties if they are frightened.

Thanks Bmos, I was going to say this also but I messed up my testing and put the IF faction part after the Aura of Conquest and it didn't work, so I was like maybe it has too many ifs lol.

Edit: Yeah Bmos I just tested this and it doesn't work correctly, it will still cause damage to the Aura giver, if they are frightened.
So really doesn't need it. The issue will only come up if the aura giver is frightened for some reason.