|
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago, IL (USA)
Posts: 10,729
|
Release 1.4 - ?/??/????
Enhancements & Changes
Bug Fixes
Data File Authoring
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; April 4th, 2011 at 03:14 PM. Reason: Updates |
#1 |
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago, IL (USA)
Posts: 10,729
|
That is not a bad idea at say at release of 2.0 could be a major change over that we can try and have this done. Will need to have a good explanation of how to do this and how to recover if someone does NOT do it before installing the 2.0 release.
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. |
#2 |
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chicago, IL (USA)
Posts: 10,729
|
Quote:
P.S. - I added your Pathfinder Improved Natural Attack feat to my house rules file and it works great. Thanks much for that. 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. |
|
#3 |
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
I'm busy this week installing a VM for the Wiki, and I should have that upgraded/installed/ready by Sat. Your welcome on the INA edit. I'm not sure if it will get integrated, but if not we can keep it in the user mods section. I'm very detail oriented, like the Dawnflower edit, I made that because a Player added both to a PC and I needed to make sure that presented an error. I guess Mathis is not inclined to add if checks in non stacking things checking for their non stacking brothers? I can understand why. You would need to add more if's whenever new non-stacking things are created. |
|
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,151
|
This may not be for 1.4, but do we want to consider cleaning up names that have the book title? For instance, all the feats from RoS have (RoS) in the name of the feat. This appears to be fairly standard practice, but I wonder if its necessary.
I only bring this up because I was going to start working on the CPsi feats. The first one (Deep Vision) is also in Races of Stone. The easiest thing to do here is modify the RoS - Feats file to allow this feat with either source. Then I thought this might be confusing if someone had Complete Psionics selected, but not Races of Stone and sees a feat from RoS. I suppose I could just create a new feat and stop over-thinking it, but I wanted to get opinions from other developers on how to handle stuff like this. Any thoughts? |
#5 |
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
So in the scenario where a DM is using a book printed in 2002 and the feat was updated in a book printed in 2005 that the DM isn't using. The feat from the unused book in 2005 is the one by RAW the DM should be using. Anyway, I think we should use the newest version of the feat and tag them to both books. Then whichever book is enabled, they will get the same feat. Now, that being said. I'm not sure I like the book in the feat/feature like "(RoS)" unless there are multiple items that shouldn't be combined (not sure of why they wouldn't be combined based on the above "newest printing is only printing" rules.) So I'm in favor of removing the "(RoS)" tags. |
|
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,265
|
I agree with removing the book name from the feats. As is noted here updated feats overrule earlier versions.
When I added the complete warrior data I tagged the name CWar as a reminder of the source. However since more custom data has been added then duplicates have been uncovered. I think the replace Id mechanism is the best method to deal with older duplication, Users that don't have both sources flagged would only see the newer data. On a side note ETA on the MIC - Specific Weapons data, Friday 25th February. All weapons from Magic item compendium have been entered only the relic weapons need to be fully coded. I'm grinding through the deities and the respective abilities. Hopefully it should be in the 1.4 release. Last edited by bodrin; February 24th, 2011 at 06:00 AM. |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,151
|
Yes, updated feats do over-rule earlier ones. In this case, the feats are the same though the wording in Complete Psionics is slightly different. I'm not sure that's a big deal, but what I will do is create a new feat that over-writes the old one and sources both books (since Complete Psionics is the "newer" version).
I would be happy to do some clean-up of the feat names as well if that's the general consensus. |
#8 |
Senior Member
Volunteer Data File Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 623
|
|
#9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,151
|
Maybe I was confused. I originally said the easiest thing to do was modify the original and it sounded as if you were suggesting something else.
|
#10 |
|
|