Thread: Limited 5E testing
-
March 5th, 2014, 00:06 #21
Dropping Appearance into a second tab should be fine. The information would still be at hand. Flubnak is an important NPC, so it is quite long. I showed that one because it contained most of the features. It would be nice if every creature has every section, regardless of important information being contained in it or not. Reactions could be tossed onto the second tab as well as extra data for now until we see the final data. (you should see the legendary black dragon they showed off...two pages including lair information and Legendary Actions!)
-
March 5th, 2014, 00:10 #22
I think putting too much work into it without fully knowing how the final product will look can't be the best use of your time. Please don't get me wrong, I enjoy mucking around with the playtest material but I believe they said that the release should be summer this year. Other than a few hitches here and there the ruleset works great for the playtest as is.
Now, on to the good stuff! I was able to play an hour and a half game this weekend due to one of our regulars leaving early.
One of my players loved the character sheet layout. The other one was fairly neutral.
The AC for armor doesn't automatically add to the sheet when equipped. The 5E rules for armor are a bit wonky as they change your base AC rather than adding AC. (Leather armor listed as AC 11 rather than +1 AC).
For the Powers page, when in Preparation mode, how do you set which spells are prepared?
Is there a way for weapons to have more than one damage type? Say "1d8 Slashing, 2d6 Fire" for a Flame Tongue?
I can confirm that the Reactions now show up in the NPC and Combat Tracker entries from the data I parsed before your update today.
That's all for now I suppose. I will let you know the results next game I run.
-
March 5th, 2014, 03:23 #23
Go to the powers tab and then click the magnifying glass next on the row that says Spells. In there is an Ability toggle. Set it to Wis and it should work. I also found that this is also where you set your spells/day so you can prepare them so, ignore my previous question about spell prep.
Last edited by OneSidedDie; March 5th, 2014 at 03:26.
-
March 5th, 2014, 04:23 #24
Supreme Deity
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Posts
- 20,541
For the AC, it makes the most sense to leave the armor as is, since it is similar to 3.5E and essentially the same 10 + some armor bonus. None of the rulesets automatically add armor bonus to the sheet, since it would change every time you dropped a piece of armor on your character, whether you were wearing or just carrying.
For the weapon multiple damage types, I've been contemplating tackling this as a feature improvement, since this is also an issue for 3.5E/PFRPG. I think Nickademus was looking at it for 3.5E/PFRPG, so one way or another, I believe this will get done.
Regards,
JPG
-
March 5th, 2014, 04:23 #25
It appears to be working as intended after today's update
For spells like Flame Tongue or even a rogue's backstab, I create an effect that targets Self to add the damage type and dice. For example my Avenger's targets Self for one action. "DMG:2d8 necrotic;Divine Smite" is how I have it listed. He's not exactly a nice guy. I do this with Call to Battle (bards), Bless, etc as well. Works out pretty well and prevents me from having to track much myself Spells that require concentration, I put an extra effect in there listed as "Concentration" with a duration of however long it should last (usually 10 minutes) just so I can see who is using their concentration on any spells.Last edited by Irondrake; March 5th, 2014 at 04:29.
-
March 6th, 2014, 04:27 #26
Couple of new errors cropped up tonight during the session. This is related to the Long Rest function. It did not reset the Hit Dice or heal the characters in the combat tracker to full. I thought it did this before. Also, I believe I discovered the nature of this error that pops up in one campaign but not the other: Script Error: attempt to compare two userdata values. The campaign this happens with has a multiclassed character. When I opened that characters character sheet and adjusted his hit dice, the error popped up again. Since he has two different hit dice, I think that's what may be causing it.
-
March 7th, 2014, 18:24 #27
Supreme Deity
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Posts
- 20,541
I just created a new character, and used drag and drop to add 2 classes (and also tried manual class add) with two different hit die types, and didn't see any errors.
Anything else you can think of that you did while creating this character? Can you recreate on a new character?
I can also take a look at the campaign db.xml file, if you send it to me, to see if I can determine anything from the data. Just tell me name of problem character.
Regards,
JPG
-
March 7th, 2014, 19:41 #28
Supreme Deity
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Posts
- 20,541
Working on a way to allow multiple damage types for character weapons and powers to be defined and used. I'm hoping to use this for 5E as well as 3.5E/PFRPG.
I've only started on the 5E weapons so far, and only the editing interface (not rolling and displaying summary yet).
JPG
-
March 7th, 2014, 19:45 #29
I made some changes to the Class structure in the latest test version of PAR5E which I suspect Irondrake is using to create his module Class data. Not sure if the module your using JPG is from the latest PAR5E tool or not. If not, that might explain differences in errors being reported.
FG Project Development
Next Project(s)*: Starfinder v1.2 Starship Combat
Current Project: Starfinder v1.1 - Character Starships
Completed Projects: Starfinder Ruleset v1.0, Starfinder Core Rulebook, Alien Archive, Paizo Pathfinder Official Theme, D&D 5E data updates
* All fluid by nature and therefore subject to change.
-
March 7th, 2014, 19:53 #30FG Project Development
Next Project(s)*: Starfinder v1.2 Starship Combat
Current Project: Starfinder v1.1 - Character Starships
Completed Projects: Starfinder Ruleset v1.0, Starfinder Core Rulebook, Alien Archive, Paizo Pathfinder Official Theme, D&D 5E data updates
* All fluid by nature and therefore subject to change.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks