chogenkiboy wrote:
>
>
> I definitely agree that a page with background info would be great as I
> use the Background Details field to store free form notes (since I
> haven’t found another place to store free form notes). I’d also like to
> see the “background” (or “notes”) page include feat descriptions and/or
> info from the Special Abilities tab.
We definitely plan on adding a background tab with background details,
gallery images, and so on. I think mixing that and the 'notes' page
would be a bad move (you don't always want them both together) but a
separate page for feat description & special abilities would also be good.
> I like the spell book print out. I recently added a spell from a
> supplement, and I noticed the “Description Text” information for SRD
> spells is extremely summarized in the Editor. I’m guessing this was done
> to keep the spell print outs with “Details Text” useful. I also noticed
> there is a “Summary Text” field that appears to be unused. I suggest the
> spell print outs leverage the Summary Text field instead of the
> Description Text field so that the entire spell text can be stored in
> the Description Text field.
That's a good idea, but it'd require us to import the full spell text
from the SRD. I'll see how much work would be involved in doing that.
> Also, the naming convention for spell print outs in the Print Portfolio
> seems a bit counter intuitive. “Descriptions Only” includes all the
> fields I’d be inclined to classify as details. “Detail Text” includes
> what is labeled in the Editor as the “Description Text” field, though as
> I mentioned, I think “Summary Text” would be better. I suggest the Print
> Portfolio refer to “Details” and “Summaries”.
Ironically we're using the text that the SRD uses to describe them, but
apparently it's as confusing to users as it is to us. How about
"Details" (for components etc) and "Effects" (for the description)?
> Another change to consider for the “Details and Summaries” print out is
> using the Range Tags values instead of Range Text, because I think most
> spells only include one range tag, and that would leave more room for
> other details in the print report lines.
I think that we need to include the full 'range' text, unfortunately,
because without them the spell details are incomplete and not very
useful. One thing I am going to try and do is shrink the text if it
doesn't fit, so you should see less cut off text once that's implemented.
Thanks,
--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Chief Engineer, Lone Wolf Development
http://www.wolflair.com/