Feedback Thread - 2026-05 Ruleset Updates

[Farratto]

Without a clear use case; I'm not sure that the issue is worth the complexity in the code it causes.
Currently, the ! operator (NOT) for tags applies to the result of the check.

If we see clear use cases pop up later, we can re-evaulate.

Regards,
JPG

We have used !CUSTOM(effect) on quite a few different RAW 5e spell automations in 5eAE. 161 matches on a ctrl-F of 5eAE for Player's Handbook alone.

[Tempered7]

[ERROR]
In the current TEST Channel:

In a clean 5E campaign,

* Pressing any Ability Save dice button gives script execution error: Check abil-save-error.png
This happens with or without freshly created characters [or imported ones].abil-save-error.png

[Trenloe]

Attack states don't reset after rolling damage tested in 5E and PFRPG2. Roll an critical hit then roll damage - the critical damage is rolled correctly, roll damage again and critical damage will be rolled. Expectation - the attack state should be reset after rolling damage.

[Mike Serfass]

Attack states don't reset after rolling damage tested in 5E and PFRPG2. Roll an critical hit then roll damage - the critical damage is rolled correctly, roll damage again and critical damage will be rolled. Expectation - the attack state should be reset after rolling damage.

In Savage Worlds, we maintain attack states because we have bennies which allow rerolls. Those rerolls should be made in the exact same state as the original roll.
I don't know if this request impacts that, but if so, we'll require some way of maintaining state.

[Moon Wizard]

Apologies for the response delays. Was focusing on getting 2E/PF2/SF2 migrated, as well as DH launch stuff.

@Farratto,
Do you have specific examples of 5E features where 5EAE is using !CUSTOM?

@Farratto/@charmov/@Speculi/@Kelrugem,
Does it make sense for IFT: !<ANYCONDITIONALTYPE> to automatically be TRUE if no target? Is that how you've seen the other implementations work?

@Trenloe/@Mike Serfass,
This was a bug; and it should be fixed in the latest Test build.

Regards,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

I did some digging, and came up with a new way to implement the IFT: !<CONDITIONAL> scenario in the code that is much smaller now that I've had a chance to look at it a few times.

I went ahead and pushed this to Test channel.

Regards,
JPG

[charmov]

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean here; maybe with an example of what you are trying to do.

Targeting with an NPC doesn't seem to work with NPC's. I've tried to drop effects on multiple targets with the conditions list and custom effects like SKIPTURN from the menu but they don't seem to apply to the targets. Maybe something's changed since I last tried but when I have an NPC selected in the tracker and multiple targets dropping an effect from the menu doesn't seem to work.

@Farratto/@charmov/@Speculi/@Kelrugem,
Does it make sense for IFT: !<ANYCONDITIONALTYPE> to automatically be TRUE if no target? Is that how you've seen the other implementations work?

I'm not sure if I've seen this or not. What would be an example of it?

[Moon Wizard]

In a 5E campaign, I just tried dropping effects from the campaign Effects list, both presets and custom ones; as well as having a PC vs. NPC active and checking the source of the effect. It was all correct. I also tried dragging and dropping effects from both PCs and NPCs, and it was working.

If you are still having issues; please disable any extensions first to see if they might be causing the issue. Then, if still an issue, please let me know the steps to see what you are seeing.

Regards,
JPG

[Speculi]

@Farratto/@charmov/@Speculi/@Kelrugem,
Does it make sense for IFT: !<ANYCONDITIONALTYPE> to automatically be TRUE if no target? Is that how you've seen the other implementations work?

If there is no target, it also can't have a trait/feature/tag so I would say yes, makes sense. The target is nothing, so IFT: !<ANYTHING> is always true, imho

[Kelrugem]

@Farratto/@charmov/@Speculi/@Kelrugem,
Does it make sense for IFT: !<ANYCONDITIONALTYPE> to automatically be TRUE if no target? Is that how you've seen the other implementations work?

I think it is logically more consistent, yes, as I described in my other posts and as Speculi also just mentioned But gameplay-wise it is really not relevant, I guess

In my extension I returned true for such cases, but there was a similar extension for 5e and that one did the opposite; I never saw anyone complaining about the implementation of both versions. So, only if it is really easy to implement and to mantain, then returning true for logic-consistency may be nice, but that is just "aesthetic"/cosmetics

Though there may be one gameplay-argument relevant for FG: Targets without the conditional (so for which the effect would be applied) are usually bigger in numbers than the targets excluded by the conditional (so for which the effect would be ignored), so that it may make sense to apply the effect to rolls with no target for a better "approximation" of the pure chat roll, especially if one wants to drag the number of the chat to a target. Currently, IFT effects are not taken into account when one drags chat results onto targets, but at least the majority of cases would then be handled well
(I hope it makes sense what I mean in this paragraph )