Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 830
|
Another case where oread's can use it the human ART.
|
#11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 292
|
That one actually gives them the humanoid subtype. So that would work even if you would a "forced" warning
|
#12 |
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago, IL (USA)
Posts: 10,729
|
Quote:
I can go back and add some additional "text" to that ability about its not a core and its a "helper" thing. I at least did that with allot of the Unchained archetypes I created to say these are not official and you must get GM permission to use them. I guess I should add that too more things. Hero Lab Resources: Pathfinder - d20pfsrd and Pathfinder Pack Setup 3.5 D&D (d20) - Community Server Setup 5E D&D - Community Server Setup Hero Lab Help - Hero Lab FAQ, Editor Tutorials and Videos, Editor & Scripting Resources. Created by the community for the community - Realm Works kickstarter backer (Alpha Wolf) and Beta tester.- d20 HL package volunteer editor. |
|
#13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 397
|
Sorry, still not convinced it's better to not show warnings on adjustments not allowed...
1. Familiars wouldn't get a warning AFAIK, wizards can cast spells of target "You" on the familiar. OK. But the adjustment isn't added via wizard, you go to the familiar and add the adjustment. By default, "you" are the source and target as far as HL is concerned. 2. I don't think HL can police spells of target: "you", "self", "one creature", etc. Or rather it's not needed? But if the target has a restriction of "type" or "subtype" or "alignment" or other such causes, it should warn you. 3. It is always better to warn than not warn. No warnings == you may be getting away with something you are not. Warnings == GM looks, asks question, gives ok. Are you saying have a red mark/warning in HL bugs you that much? 4. For animal companions, say a Goliath Druid can cast spells that target Humanoid on their companion. But, this is a class feature. Hero Labs knows this. Can pass this information to the minion and can account for this making it valid. 5. There are already a handful of adjustments that DO take type or alignment into account and show as invalid/red if selected... So, if you are getting, say, enlarge person that works differently than the spell, it's probably going to be a one-off situation I would think. I haven't seen any good examples on where, if this was enforced, would produce a lot of unwarranted warnings. Edit: Shadow, thanks. Personally it's clear to me. But it's a case and point, what is clear to a programmer is not always clear to a user. It's like Variant Channeling, HL lets you click/add this awesome thing without telling you the downsides. Too many people don't read the source material anymore and build characters inside HL (for obvious reasons), myself included. I rarely go to the source material... -Jamz RPTools.net | MapTool Discord Invite Download Latest MapTool Release | Download Latest TokenTool Release Last edited by Jamz; February 9th, 2017 at 04:47 PM. |
#14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,528
|
So, Jamz, I think you're misunderstanding something.
Reading your reasoning, it seems you're expecting the Adjustment to be able to reference the related spell to see requirements, and to validate changes (esp. in your example case of the Goliath druid and the class feature). That's not true. The adjustment is a separate thing. The only link is that someone named it for the spell as a spell adjustment. The "Enlarge Person" spell adjustment could be renamed "Make Creature 1 Size Bigger" and would still work as it does now... it would just be harder for someone casting Enlarge Person in play to know that's the right one to apply. Even if there was a straightforward way to trace from the adjustment back to the spell, the "Targets" entry is just text. It would take a lot of text parsing to pick apart what the "Targets" entry means and get it down to a Type or SubType requirement. So asking the adjustment to check for Types based on the spell entry is ... not practical, really, even if it were possible. Any validation has to be coded on the Adjustment based on the author's knowledge of how it works.. and re-coded over and over for every new exception if it is going to handle them. That is why it is often easier not to include them... because GMs making house rules will complain that they cannot get rid of the warnings. |
#15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 830
|
I will note that Are you saying have a red mark/warning in HL bugs you that much? I will state that yes, validation issues/warnings irritate the hell out of me. Call it OCD, or whatever but the only time HL should be throwing warnings is on actual issues. The affects of spells and similar have a lot of use cases, and variations that its up to the player to verify. Honestly anyone using HL for pathfinder should be able to calculate and verify everything on their sheet. I know HL has bugs and forcing players to review and audit the sheets does two things, makes sure HL isnt providing bad information, and two ensuring that the player understands the rules and mechanics.
I dont mean this as an insult, but I started playing an unchained summoner for PFS in the fall. HL sees the spell Infernal Healing as on the unchained summoner list and PFS legal. Its not. There is only one place that it is listed on the unchained summoner list and that is not in the approved additional resources page. I raised the issue with LW and was basically told its not a bug, and HL is working as intended. I asked for citations for that statement and was basically told because its on the chained summoner list its allowed to be on unchained version. However Paizo carefully reviewed and spells out which spells the unchained summoner can use, and its not on that list. At this point I know RAW, and HL differ on this subject and have adjusted accordingly. |
#16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jonesboro, AR (USA)
Posts: 858
|
I could be wrong, but I don't think ShadowChemosh is talking about a "red flag warning." I think his intent is just to add some text to the adjustment description that would read something like, "It is possible to add this adjustment to an invalid target, so it's up to the player/GM to make sure the target is valid."
If this is true, there is no red flag, no validation error, etc. Just the text in the adjustment description. |
#17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada.
Posts: 813
|
I like that I can get a size increase from the Enlarge Person adjustment, or since I have the mythic package I check change the drop down box from 'normal' to 'mythic' for two size increases, irregardless of my target being a person or not.
There are no red warnings that I am applying an adjustment to a Dire Bear, and that the bear is not a valid target, and I personally would not want such a warning. Maybe I have a demonically possessed bear, which grows in size as it's health is diminished. I'd rather find a size increase through 'Enlarge Person' than hunt for 'Bigger Bear'. |
#18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 292
|
Mowgli, you are right that shadow is talking about that kind of "warning". However the original poster (Jamz) wants an actual red warning
|
#19 |
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago, IL (USA)
Posts: 10,729
|
I was talking about the "red" message text. To me those are "warnings" as they are not hard script logic stops. So yes it would show as "gray" text and have a red text message saying "humanoid creature type required." Honestly if I was creating the script today its exactly what I would do.
I have a community created "Awaken (Vermin)" spell adjustment that is made to work on Vermin and I did the same thing to it. In my mind the "red" text is just FYI information and I have no issues ignoring it in HL. I am sorry to say I don't understand why people get hung up on the red text. I am not saying its bad I simply don't understand it. Knowing that I have seen gamers upset over the "red" text I would mostly add logic that made the Spell Adjustment "valid" once added to a character. With the idea that if the gamer wants this Thing then they get it without a warning. But in all honestly nothing being said here is hard facts of logic. Its all opinions of how people want the UI to work in HL. I am pretty sure like a character sheet layout that no way to make EVERYONE happy regardless of how HL does things. Hero Lab Resources: Pathfinder - d20pfsrd and Pathfinder Pack Setup 3.5 D&D (d20) - Community Server Setup 5E D&D - Community Server Setup Hero Lab Help - Hero Lab FAQ, Editor Tutorials and Videos, Editor & Scripting Resources. Created by the community for the community - Realm Works kickstarter backer (Alpha Wolf) and Beta tester.- d20 HL package volunteer editor. Last edited by ShadowChemosh; February 10th, 2017 at 09:25 AM. |
#20 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|