-
Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.
If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.
- The Lone Wolf Development Team
Enlarge Person on non-humanoids
- Thread starter Jamz
- Start date
ShadowChemosh
Well-known member
Its called "Shadow Stupid!".
As the person who originally did lots of the spell adjustments I never thought to put a "warning message". I assumed incorrectly that gamers where smart enough to not apply the adjustment to the wrong type of creature.
Don't worry I have sense learned from this mistake and assume the above statements about gamers is not true!
Hehehe like I just insulted everyone including myself in one post!
Honestly never thought about it when scripting the adjustment and obviously whoever put into HL officially never really thought about it either. I was more worried about making sure the "changes" to the character where correct.
What about spells like reduce animal, or the enlarge/reduce fey spells that are implied to exist by the "Targeting Fey" section (pg. 11) of The First World, Realm of the Fey? Why make users create a whole new adjustment in order to apply the identical effects of those spells, just because we've got very specific targeting requirements on the regular Enlarge Person spell adjustment?
What about adventure-specific effects that grant the effects of enlarge person to all characters who do some specific thing, regardless of whether they fit the Target information of the base spell?
What about adventure-specific effects that grant the effects of enlarge person to all characters who do some specific thing, regardless of whether they fit the Target information of the base spell?
The adjustments in Hero Lab apply the effects of the individual spells. Being a valid target of the spell is not required to have those effects applied to you. Having the spell successfully cast on you, yes, but just having the effects, no.
If a creature isn't a valid target for a spell, why are you adding the adjustment?
If a creature isn't a valid target for a spell, why are you adding the adjustment?
ShadowChemosh
Well-known member
Because not ever gamer has the rules of the game memorized. They want HL to do all the "reminding" for them. You usually see this happen when a person is playing a Tiefling or Assamar which are actually outsiders not humanoid. To top it off the gamer may not even know "humanoid" is referring to a specific creature "Type" meaning they would assume that their Tiefling is a humanoid.
Those would be my guesses for why Enlarge person should warn about being applied to a incorrect creature type.
But Shadow there are kinda too many exceptions look at the eidolon already mentioned here earlier or the share spell from familiars.
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
And I am sure there are even more exceptions (like magical equipment allow you to enlarge using the same modifiers as enlarge person). Together with what Mathias already said I rather have it the way it is myself. Seeing throwing a warning would give valid targets a warning. Unless you plan to add every exception in there. The only thing I might consider is putting colored text in the adjustment to remind people of it.
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
And I am sure there are even more exceptions (like magical equipment allow you to enlarge using the same modifiers as enlarge person). Together with what Mathias already said I rather have it the way it is myself. Seeing throwing a warning would give valid targets a warning. Unless you plan to add every exception in there. The only thing I might consider is putting colored text in the adjustment to remind people of it.
Last edited:
ShadowChemosh
Well-known member
Those are exceptions to the core rule. So you would know to ignore the humanoid part. The easiest way is to then show the warning message before selecting the spell. But after its added to a character the adjustment is valid because a gamer added it to their character.
That would be the simple soultion here.
That would be the simple soultion here.
This has came up because of our Oread Goliath Druid.
Add I agree that you *could* get the spell affect from a different source, but I would say more often than not most of the time you get things like "... As per the spell XYZ"
And we are only talking about adding a warning, not disallow the adjustment.
I would say this is only relevant to Spell adjustments and not the other adjustments as they are more generic.
And come on, if we could remember every Pathfinder rule, we wouldn't need Hero Lab half the time... Or group now has a saying "Hero Lab let me do it..." And unfortunately our go to response is "that doesn't mean it's right..."
@Shadow I had a "slap my hand on the forehead" moment when a player said he found a meta magic that allowed him to adjust any first level spell to a zero level... We tried to tell him it didn't exist until he showed us...turned out it was the +/- level adjustments if your files. Proof that if you build it, they will click it...
I suppose you could have the adjustments have the "show available" drop down like feats, hide/show legal adjustments.
Add I agree that you *could* get the spell affect from a different source, but I would say more often than not most of the time you get things like "... As per the spell XYZ"
And we are only talking about adding a warning, not disallow the adjustment.
I would say this is only relevant to Spell adjustments and not the other adjustments as they are more generic.
And come on, if we could remember every Pathfinder rule, we wouldn't need Hero Lab half the time... Or group now has a saying "Hero Lab let me do it..." And unfortunately our go to response is "that doesn't mean it's right..."
@Shadow I had a "slap my hand on the forehead" moment when a player said he found a meta magic that allowed him to adjust any first level spell to a zero level... We tried to tell him it didn't exist until he showed us...turned out it was the +/- level adjustments if your files. Proof that if you build it, they will click it...
I suppose you could have the adjustments have the "show available" drop down like feats, hide/show legal adjustments.
Last edited:
Jamz I know you are talking about the warning adding only not disallowing it. But let's take a familiar for example. They are legal targets as per the share spell. They will get a warning in the setup you are requesting.
As I said myself I am fine with a warning before adding it to yourself. By as my example gave adding colored text or what Shadow said a warning before adding it to your character. But I don't agree with Hero Lab giving a warning after adding it to your character. Seeing there are too many exception making it still legal on none humanoids. And than all those legal choices and up with a unwarranted warning
As I said myself I am fine with a warning before adding it to yourself. By as my example gave adding colored text or what Shadow said a warning before adding it to your character. But I don't agree with Hero Lab giving a warning after adding it to your character. Seeing there are too many exception making it still legal on none humanoids. And than all those legal choices and up with a unwarranted warning
Last edited:
ShadowChemosh
Well-known member
Ouch.
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.
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...
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...
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maidhc O Casain
Well-known member
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.
If this is true, there is no red flag, no validation error, etc. Just the text in the adjustment description.
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'.
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'.
ShadowChemosh
Well-known member
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.
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.
Last edited: