• 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

Pathfinder Community Standards....

Statblocks

I am wondering if we can change the way the Statblocks can be change to a different format instead of Pathfinder change to the old 3.5 edition. The reason is that it will make life easier for different programs that utilize the old stat block at the same time putting Hero Lab as my main program.
 
Sunday (Feb 22, 2015) @ Noon CST Time I am going to be starting to package the software up for release.

Please DO NOT make changes in the github repository after 12:00 pm CST thanks!
 
So I see editors are correctly filling in "Source Page Number" but the "Source Book Information" field does not show in the editor. You have to manually fill in "srcBookInf" value using the "Fields" blue button at the top right for each class. Without this the page number info will not display on print outs. =(

So as we get time fill in this info! Thanks!

Also FYI I have started to compile all the "Tips and tricks" into a single post HERE on the first post of this thread.
 
To all "Editors" please setup yourself up to get "Instant Notifications" from this thread. So that any "announcements" I do you see. :D ;)

So how do you do that? Do a new post to this thread and scroll down to "Notification Type:" section. And pick "Instant Email notification".
 
Errror in the 3PP Pack from the contributor side.

The data files could not be loaded due to errors. Hero Lab will now attempt to load them in recovery mode. Once loaded, you can access the editor as normal to correct any errors.

The following errors occurred:

File: COM_3PPPack_C7E - Tome of Secrets Classes.user (line 401) - Thing 'cHelpPst' (dynamic tag) - Group 'PackHelper' not defined
File: COM_3PPPack_C7E - Tome of Secrets Classes.user (line 594) - Thing 'cHelpSwa' (dynamic tag) - Group 'PackHelper' not defined
File: COM_3PPPack_C7E - Tome of Secrets Classes.user (line 711) - Thing 'cHelpWaL' (dynamic tag) - Group 'PackHelper' not defined
File: COM_3PPPack_C7E - Tome of Secrets Classes.user (line 915) - Thing 'cHelpKnt' (dynamic tag) - Group 'PackHelper' not defined
 
Errror in the 3PP Pack from the contributor side.

The data files could not be loaded due to errors. Hero Lab will now attempt to load them in recovery mode. Once loaded, you can access the editor as normal to correct any errors.

The following errors occurred:

File: COM_3PPPack_C7E - Tome of Secrets Classes.user (line 401) - Thing 'cHelpPst' (dynamic tag) - Group 'PackHelper' not defined
File: COM_3PPPack_C7E - Tome of Secrets Classes.user (line 594) - Thing 'cHelpSwa' (dynamic tag) - Group 'PackHelper' not defined
File: COM_3PPPack_C7E - Tome of Secrets Classes.user (line 711) - Thing 'cHelpWaL' (dynamic tag) - Group 'PackHelper' not defined
File: COM_3PPPack_C7E - Tome of Secrets Classes.user (line 915) - Thing 'cHelpKnt' (dynamic tag) - Group 'PackHelper' not defined
Same "issue" reported HERE with answer HERE. :)

This is Tip#1 in the Tips and Tricks post. Its the one manual step we have to do to keep everything in sync.
 
And I did pull from the Basic Pack, but I must have missed a file somewhere because I was aware of those instructions. I'll have to look tonight later. Thanks.
 
All Packs have been released. Please make sure you do fresh Pulls of the Packs before trying to do anymore updates.

But feel free to go back to fixing and adding stuff again. Thanks for everyone taking a freeze why I got these out. :)
 
So quick clarification, hopefully. Since I have done a significant portion of the RGG stuff, going back and setting the HL Community on the Product Identify for sounds like a cleanup item then. Also, on the Source, I think a lot of mine have source flagged on all the items. Which tabs should not have the source identified so stuff can be reused?

Thanks.
 
Since I have done a significant portion of the RGG stuff, going back and setting the HL Community on the Product Identify for sounds like a cleanup item then.
So its not a high priority to add this. As you get time update the Product ID. I have a "half" working script that can auto add the Product ID tag that works on 80% of things. I will be running that as I get time.

Also, on the Source, I think a lot of mine have source flagged on all the items. Which tabs should not have the source identified so stuff can be reused?
You should be Source Marking anything that is visible to be selected by a gamer. So the Things that should not be source marked are "Racial Specials" and "Class Specials". "Abilities" are sometimes source marked and sometimes no. In example if you add a new "DR" ability that should NOT be source marked and it should be in placed in the Basic Pack even. If you add an Ability to support a specific feat or Thing then you can feel free to source mark it.
 
Speaking of source-marking, I'm about to start on material from the playtest for Path of War Expanded. Should I create a new source for that (i.e. "Path of War Expanded Playtest") or would you prefer to keep it in one place a la Ultimate Psionics?
 
Speaking of source-marking, I'm about to start on material from the playtest for Path of War Expanded. Should I create a new source for that (i.e. "Path of War Expanded Playtest") or would you prefer to keep it in one place a la Ultimate Psionics?
We should add a new "Source ID" actually for this book. That way a group/DM can easily decide to not allow its Things and turn it off. If it is still in playtest I would like to add the [playtest] tag to the classes like LW does. So on the "Class Level" thing please add the tag "Helper.Playtest".

I do have to ask after doing the PoW playtest stuff is it worth to do it now? Or better to wait until the playtest is over otherwise making all the script changes and stuff for each playtest revision can get overwhelming. Not including having to recheck the text of everything after the official book comes out?
 
So I keep seeing lots of non-standard scripts running for class specials. Lots of class specials can be handled with the same script actually.

This script example works perfect for any class special that gives a +1 at random levels like 1,4,5,8. So you would bootstrap the class special to the class four times setting the levels for 1,4,5 & 8. Then use this script at Post-Level/10000:
Code:
~ Set the list name
field[listname].text = field[thingname].text & " " & signed(field[xIndex].value)

~ If we're not shown, just get out now
doneif (tagis[Helper.ShowSpec] <> 1)
~ if we've been disabled, get out now
doneif (tagis[Helper.SpcDisable] <> 0)

field[abValue].value += field[xCount].value
field[livename].text = field[thingname].text & " " & signed(field[abValue].value)

So instead you gain a "+2" bonus per level increase:
Code:
      ~ Set the list name
      field[listname].text = field[thingname].text & " " & signed(field[xIndex].value * 2)

      ~ If we're not shown, just get out now
      doneif (tagis[Helper.ShowSpec] <> 1)
      ~ if we've been disabled, get out now
      doneif (tagis[Helper.SpcDisable] <> 0)

      field[abValue].value += field[xCount].value * 2
      field[livename].text = field[thingname].text & " " & signed(field[abValue].value)

This example provides a +2 bonus to stealth each time it is bootstrapped:
Code:
      ~ Set the list name
      field[listname].text = field[thingname].text & " " & signed(field[xIndex].value * 2)

      ~ If we're not shown, just get out now
      doneif (tagis[Helper.ShowSpec] <> 1)
      ~ if we've been disabled, get out now
      doneif (tagis[Helper.SpcDisable] <> 0)

      field[abValue].value += field[xCount].value * 2
      field[livename].text = field[thingname].text & " " & signed(field[abValue].value)

      ~ The following should only happen once on the first copy
      doneif (tagis[Helper.FirstCopy] = 0)

      #skillbonus[skStealth] += field[abValue].value

This version adds 1d6 dice damage per bootstrapped. And then we pre-set the abValue2 field to be 6. This allows any outside script to adjust the number of dice or die size really easily.
Code:
      ~ NOTE: 
      ~ abValue holds the Number of Dice Xd6
      ~ abValue2 holds the dice size 2dX
    
      ~ Set the list name
      field[listname].text = field[thingname].text & " " & field[xIndex].value & "d" & field[abValue2].value

      ~ If we're not shown, just get out now
      doneif (tagis[Helper.ShowSpec] <> 1)
      ~ if we've been disabled, get out now
      doneif (tagis[Helper.SpcDisable] <> 0)

      field[abValue].value += field[xCount].value
      field[livename].text = field[thingname].text & " " & field[abValue].value & "d" & field[abValue2].value

Notice how the script logic has only very minor changes to it. The above does not hard code names or anything. Making it really easy to re-use on a different class special. The script is setup to work with archetypes so that it will disable itself when an archetype "disables" the class special.

The other really nice thing is by having a standard an editor can easily see what is going on when they open up the script. It really makes a difference when we have this many different people making and maintaining the source code now.
 
I do have to ask after doing the PoW playtest stuff is it worth to do it now? Or better to wait until the playtest is over otherwise making all the script changes and stuff for each playtest revision can get overwhelming. Not including having to recheck the text of everything after the official book comes out?

That's a good question and one that I've been mulling over myself. All in all, I feel it's best to take advantage of the headstart that a public playtest gives us so that we can have it ready as soon as possible after official release, even if it means doing a bit of backtracking.

Also, I think it's important to encourage companies like DSP to do these kinds of playtests because they definitely have a positive impact on the quality of their published material, and nothing eases a playtest like having software to crunch the numbers for you so that you can focus on gameplay.

That said, I intend to start with the "older" parts of the playtest that have already received their major testing focus, specifically the Harbinger and its associated Disciplines. With any luck, I'll be able to time things so that I get to a given part after it's already gone through most of its major changes, so that there's not too much revision work to be done after the fact. For example, the Mystic class was put up just a couple of weeks ago, and I won't be touching that for a while.
 
Also, I think it's important to encourage companies like DSP to do these kinds of playtests because they definitely have a positive impact on the quality of their published material, and nothing eases a playtest like having software to crunch the numbers for you so that you can focus on gameplay.
Very true. Overall I really like DSP and there stuff. Just that "one" guy that works for them I don't like and don't like his game designs at all. Not including his posts on the Paizo boards are just "blah"!

Anyways it is fun using HL to make up lots of Playtest characters. :D
 
Back
Top