Kelrugem's extensions

[Kelrugem]

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

[darrenan]

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?

[Kelrugem]

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?

[Kelrugem]

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

[bmos]

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

Thanks as always.

[Kelrugem]

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

Thanks as always.

Thanks

[darrenan]

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?

[Kelrugem]

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 )

[Kelrugem]

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 )

[darrenan]

ok, cool, thanks