Extension for custom damage types

[Rhydion]

So I had a chance to look at it again, I literally did nothing different than what I did last time, and now its working. I did pull the custom damage types and redownload and follow steps again, but it is identical to what it was before. There could have been a removed letter, or punctuation somewhere and that could have caused my issue. I'm not sure, I'm just glad its working again.
Sorry for any possible extra work you had to do.
To answer your question: I run this in 5e, (don't know if I mentioned that last time), but I did nothing but update during the May 5th update, removed all extensions to find out which ones were working, and which ones weren't. There was no specific error, it just wasn't working tried custom damage vs resistances and without, and what WAS happening, was if I had any custom damage type listed in either a weapon or spell, it just would not roll the damage at all. I don't know if that was intended or not. If I had say shadow damage and slashing damage in a weapon, it would roll the damage, but only apply the slashing, if I only had shadow damage as the damage, it would not roll anything.
Again, its working now.

Glad it's working for you. I did help another friend who was having issues in 5e with "Resistance to <XDamageType> from nonmagical weapons".

If you find this isn't working for you, update it to this version:

function onInit()
local tYOURDamageTypes = {
"Damagetype1",
"Damagetype2",
"Damagetype3",
"etc",
};

ActionCore.addBasicDamageType(tYOURDamageTypes);

end

=======

This is because as I found out, in the 5E ruleset the resistance parsing cares about basic damage types down the code pipeline.

Obviously, if everything is working and stable, don't fix it. But if you want a little future proofing using correct helpers to prevent silliness if things change later somewhere else in the pipeline, update to the above.

Though I am very confused as to how the old version is still functioning for some people, since the way it seems to handle damage inputs downstream seems notably different. Weird.

[Kelace]

Glad it's working for you. I did help another friend who was having issues in 5e with "Resistance to <XDamageType> from nonmagical weapons".

If you find this isn't working for you, update it to this version:

function onInit()
local tYOURDamageTypes = {
"Damagetype1",
"Damagetype2",
"Damagetype3",
"etc",
};

ActionCore.addBasicDamageType(tYOURDamageTypes);

end

=======

This is because as I found out, in the 5E ruleset the resistance parsing cares about basic damage types down the code pipeline.

Obviously, if everything is working and stable, don't fix it. But if you want a little future proofing using correct helpers to prevent silliness if things change later somewhere else in the pipeline, update to the above.

Though I am very confused as to how the old version is still functioning for some people, since the way it seems to handle damage inputs downstream seems notably different. Weird.

I really have no clue, I just redownloaded the extension, and placed everything back in that needed to be there, and did some testing with and without other extensions and its all working nicely. I did a test with RESIST: 5 bludgeoning if that is what you were referring to on Resisitance to <XDamageType> and it worked fine, if that is in reference to another way to show resistance then I don't know about that.

[Rhydion]

I really have no clue, I just redownloaded the extension, and placed everything back in that needed to be there, and did some testing with and without other extensions and its all working nicely. I did a test with RESIST: 5 bludgeoning if that is what you were referring to on Resisitance to <XDamageType> and it worked fine, if that is in reference to another way to show resistance then I don't know about that.

Right ok. Well resist is just a flat way to lower damage against a type. But sometimes in 5e you have resistances only apply to nonmagical weapons, which is what I was talking about previously.

But if its working its working I guess XD

[Kelrugem]

Hi

Sorry for the late reply But it works now, right? Otherwise let me know again

@Rhydion: Indeed, there is now a more elegant way to do it, but the old way should still work (the new functions one can use are basically doing the table.insert stuff what my extension suggests, so should still work )

[Rhydion]

Hi

Sorry for the late reply But it works now, right? Otherwise let me know again

@Rhydion: Indeed, there is now a more elegant way to do it, but the old way should still work (the new functions one can use are basically doing the table.insert stuff what my extension suggests, so should still work )

Yea it was super weird on my end. I couldn't get it to resolve on my end and had to force the new way. Frankly, as long as something works for people its fine I think XD

[Kelrugem]

But I will still insert the new approach in time Thanks again!

(Because the new code does indeed at one point more than a table.insert; may be needed for certain cases)