Delete with an advance?

[TCArknight]

Hi all!

I'm working on how to do advances for a new dataset, and have a dilemma.

During character creation the user selects a particular background from many. Each background does an Autoadd of a related 'Quirk' component. As an advance, one of the selections is to change one current quirk out for another.

Is this even possible for a script to do? Or will it have to rely on the user making the swap manually?

Thanks!
TC

[AndrewD2]

What about setting up a Helper tag that would disable and hide the current one, allowing the other to add. If the advance doesn't have a specific one connected to it, you could also have the autoadded version assign a tag that it is the Quirk from creation so you can target the Helper better.

[Mathias]

A script cannot create or delete a bootstrap (and why use auto-adds? Don't you get lots of quirks left over if the user changes their mind about which background they want for their character?). Andrew's suggestion of using tags to hide the selected item, and make it look as if it was deleted by controlling whether the list expression will find it.

However, don't use the Helper group. The skeleton files have a better tag organization, and can use tags in the Hide group for this purpose, instead of the "dump everything in Helper" tags that Pathfinder inherited from d20.

[TCArknight]

So, it seems like bootstrapping all backgrounds and quirks to the hero with Hide.Background and Hide.Quirk respectfully would be the key? Selecting the advance would allow deletion of one Hide tag, and assignment of the one being replaced.

I guess a key would be for any scripts on each component to have a doneif based on the presence of the Hide tag....

[Mathias]

Why add all of them to begin with? Have two selectors on your advancement - one to select the existing quirk that gets removed (and then in the code, assign a Hide tag to it), and another selector that adds the new quirk.

Yes, the doneif tests are very important once you start using tags to mean "we're not really here". But I'd use the standard activated mechanism that's already in use in the skeleton files, rather than testing only that tag.