Lone Wolf Development Forums

Lone Wolf Development Forums (http://forums.wolflair.com/index.php)

- HL - Pathfinder Roleplaying Game (http://forums.wolflair.com/forumdisplay.php?f=62)

- - Output Issue (http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=61390)

It was suggested by support that I would be able to find ample assistance with an output issue in Pathfinder. Here is the quote from support: "I'm afraid we here in support are in a bad position to help diagnose and troubleshoot custom User files, however I do believe you will likely be able to find ample assistance on our Forums. I'm sorry I cannot be of more direct technical assistance personally."

The issue is (copied from the support ticket #231727):
I'm making some changes to my home brew for Pathfinder and ran into an output bug.

I've added a class that is similar to the Sorcerer, but one of the changes was to limit 0 level spells. They can only cast twice the number of 1st level spells. I've placed the appropriate number in the 0 level column for Spells Cast Per Level and unchecked the Unlimited 0-level Spells check box.

On the Statblock column and the Output Hero Statblock it displays: 0 (at will); and on the printed output, under Spells & Powers, it displays: 0th (at will).

If you go to the Spells tab it displays: 12 Lvl 0 spells left (and all the functionality is correct) and the Class tab displays Lvl0: 6/6 12/day.

So basically in program it displays correctly, but the statblock output and default character sheet output are still showing as though you still had unlimited. If I understand the issue correctly, I don't think there is anything a user can do, since they don't have control on those. I can take a look at things to adjust them, but probably not in the next couple days.

I've moved the original bug report for this into the pathfinder to-do list. The issue here is in HL, but isn't exposed unless you use custom content, since every official spellcasting class uses the unlimited 0-level spells system, which is why we didn't notice it before now. Thanks for catching this one.

Thanks Mathias. I figured it was truly a bug, but followed the suggestion in case there was something else that could be done. I figured it would be low priority as it's mainly a cosmetic problem, not a functional one.