Version 5.3 of the d20 System data files are now available!

[Kendall-DM]

Should XP Cost have an edit field and description? Atonement spell comes to mind.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

ShadowChemosh, I've started mowing through the spells. I've been busy lately, and will be busy again the week after the holiday, but for this week and next, I'm going to see how much of this I can whip out. Doesn't look too hard, just a lot of spells to get through. I'll keep you posted.

Ok cool. Don't kill yourself but anything you get done is one step closer to it being finished.

EDIT: Just noticed you've already done a few for testing. Also noticed that there are material components and such a manually typed in, which means I'd have to look them up and delete them from the description entries (or should I delete these from the descriptive text?). Oh, and the target text... so... will do what I can do over the next week and a half.

Correct the spell tab now has places for Material and Focus. Don't forget to read the help text against each section by clicking the "?" so you get the concept behind them.

So yea the text for material should go into the new "fields" and not in the "Description Text" section.

EDIT AGAIN: How are you handling domain spells, on their own?

This is still something I am looking into.....

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Should XP Cost have an edit field and description? Atonement spell comes to mind.

Yep missed that one. I will add it to the to-do list for the next update. I don't think we have many of those. So for now just put it in the to "Description Text" section.

 

[Kendall-DM]

Another thing that has come up. The field lengths for the Range, Target, Effect, Material Components and Focus are getting exceeded by some of the SRD text. This is hampering putting in those fields, as I can open the Edit box and edit them to include the whole text, but upon loading the game system they report exceeding the field length. The Range, Target, and Effect fields are maximum of 100 characters, while the Material Components and Focus fields are a maximum of 200 characters. So far I've done just the A spells and I've already exceeded fields on 5 spells (6 if you count Animate Dead twice for being both a 3rd and 4th level spell).

For now I may just keep those in the Descriptive Text. That just leaves the Range, Target, and Effect, which occurs on two of them.

 

[Kendall-DM]

This is still something I am looking into.....

I did a little test with Antimagic Field. I set the level 6 version of Antimagic Field to be a Sorcerer and Wizard spell as well as Protection and Magic Domains. Then I checked the Domain Spell checkbox.

I then made a Cleric and gave it the Magic Domain. That Antimagic Field spell shows up there alongside the older version. So I think it can work as is, I just have to make sure the Domain Spell checkbox is checked when a spell includes a Domain in the Spell Class list.

 

[Sendric]

Guys, a much easier method would be to create a racial or class tag in the spell class tag, one that won't actually get picked up by anything.Then those with the Spell-Like Ability tag could be shown in the SLA area of the Spell tab. That way you aren't reinventing the wheel by recreating a spell as an SLA. All spells that are SLAs have a equivalent spell level (or the same as the spell of the same name in most cases). This gives it re-usability as well. Lastly, you can still wrap the spells themselves into a Special for the Specials tab.

Just my two xp worth.

Thanks, Kendall. I think my way is currently easier. If I do it your way, I would have to create a new tag for each race that uses SLA's which means going back and forth between the races and the spells. Granted, all the spells need to be redone anyway, but I'm not quite ready for that project just yet. What I am doing is making one SLA with the spell's description that can be bootstrapped to any race.

Although, I do have to admit there is the downside that I am not including any additional information like range, duration, etc. Your way might be better for that. I'll have to look into it.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Thanks, Kendall. I think my way is currently easier. If I do it your way, I would have to create a new tag for each race that uses SLA's which means going back and forth between the races and the spells. Granted, all the spells need to be redone anyway, but I'm not quite ready for that project just yet. What I am doing is making one SLA with the spell's description that can be bootstrapped to any race.

Although, I do have to admit there is the downside that I am not including any additional information like range, duration, etc. Your way might be better for that. I'll have to look into it.

In addition keep in mind I want to add the "Append Spell Information" feature of HL into d20. This allows you to simply assign a tag to a Special and it will attach the text from the spell the tag is associated too on the Special.

In example in Pathfinder the Paladin's Detect Evil looks like using the tag (SpInfo.spDeteEvi1).


Here is how new Detect Evil Sp looks like on the Spell-Tab. This is a work in progress please note:

 

[Sendric]

In addition keep in mind I want to add the "Append Spell Information" feature of HL into d20. This allows you to simply assign a tag to a Special and it will attach the text from the spell the tag is associated too on the Special.

In example in Pathfinder the Paladin's Detect Evil looks like using the tag (SpInfo.spDeteEvi1).

Awesome! I will stick with what I'm doing now then. Guess one of these days I'll need to look at those spells, too.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Another thing that has come up. The field lengths for the Range, Target, Effect, Material Components and Focus are getting exceeded by some of the SRD text. This is hampering putting in those fields, as I can open the Edit box and edit them to include the whole text, but upon loading the game system they report exceeding the field length. The Range, Target, and Effect fields are maximum of 100 characters, while the Material Components and Focus fields are a maximum of 200 characters. So far I've done just the A spells and I've already exceeded fields on 5 spells (6 if you count Animate Dead twice for being both a 3rd and 4th level spell).

For now I may just keep those in the Descriptive Text. That just leaves the Range, Target, and Effect, which occurs on two of them.

So I will increase these fields to 500 actually. I double checked with Mathias to make sure that was not going to cause any issues. So maybe just skip these spells until the next patch.

I will add an XP Description text section to spells also.

I did a little test with Antimagic Field. I set the level 6 version of Antimagic Field to be a Sorcerer and Wizard spell as well as Protection and Magic Domains. Then I checked the Domain Spell checkbox.

I then made a Cleric and gave it the Magic Domain. That Antimagic Field spell shows up there alongside the older version. So I think it can work as is, I just have to make sure the Domain Spell checkbox is checked when a spell includes a Domain in the Spell Class list.

Awesome! Thanks for testing that out.

 

[Kendall-DM]

In addition keep in mind I want to add the "Append Spell Information" feature of HL into d20. This allows you to simply assign a tag to a Special and it will attach the text from the spell the tag is associated too on the Special.

In example in Pathfinder the Paladin's Detect Evil looks like using the tag (SpInfo.spDeteEvi1).
View attachment 3883

Here is how new Detect Evil Sp looks like on the Spell-Tab. This is a work in progress please note:
View attachment 3884

I posted my SLAs sometime back in this thread, where I mixed in the SLAs with the spells so I got spell level, context, spell description, etc. with the SLAs. I could then lump all my spells in to one lump special without having to do anything more than attach spells.

However, with the new method, it would just show up because of the tags. You don't have to create a new tag for each race. Allow the user to dynamically create the tag, and the lookup would just be SLA.? where the ? matches the race ID. Just food for thought, I'm not advocating anything, I'm just pointing out alternatives.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

I posted my SLAs sometime back in this thread, where I mixed in the SLAs with the spells so I got spell level, context, spell description, etc. with the SLAs. I could then lump all my spells in to one lump special without having to do anything more than attach spells.

However, with the new method, it would just show up because of the tags. You don't have to create a new tag for each race. Allow the user to dynamically create the tag, and the lookup would just be SLA.? where the ? matches the race ID. Just food for thought, I'm not advocating anything, I'm just pointing out alternatives.

The idea I was heading down was that you would simply bootstrap a spell say "spDeteEvi1" to your race/class/special and then set the hTotal field and then set the "Usage.?" tag. That then will display in the new "Spell-Like Ability" section I just wrote.

So if you can use Detect Evil 1/day the XML for the bootstrap would look like so:

    <bootstrap thing="spDeteEvi1">
      <autotag group="Helper" tag="SpellLike"/>
      <autotag group="Usage" tag="Day"/>
      <assignval field="hTotal" value="1"/>
      </bootstrap>

In addition the above would be a simple pop-up window in the editor:


So that is the where I am going with the changes. So that should give a very easy way to give anything a Spell-Like ability.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Just for info in d20 on a Special you can add the Tag "SpInfo.?" with the "?" the unique id of a spell and that spell information will be appended onto the Special:

 

[Sendric]

Just for info in d20 on a Special you can add the Tag "SpInfo.?" with the "?" the unique id of a spell and that spell information will be appended onto the Special:
View attachment 3889

Excellent! Thanks. If you do end up changing to the other method you listed above, that's good too. I'll test this out when I get the chance.

 

[Kendall-DM]

Thumbs up!

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Excellent! Thanks. If you do end up changing to the other method you listed above, that's good too. I'll test this out when I get the chance.

So to be clear we have three separate but unique features I am working on for Spell-Like Abilities.

1) Using the SpInfo.? tag you can have a spell append itself to the end of a Special. Useful for when a special ability says works like a spell X (ie Paladin Detect Evil).

2) Specials when marked with a "AbilType.SpellLike & Usage.? & Helper.ShowSpec" tags will display on new section of the "Spells" tab called "Spell-like abilities". In example the Paladin Detect Evil also falls into this category.

3) To give a race or class a spell-like ability directly you will be able to simply bootstrap the Spell to the Special. Then set Helper.SpellLike the Usage.? tag and the number of uses into hTotal. These then will display in the new "Spell-Like Ability" section of the Spells tab.

So why these are all "similar" they allow you to support different requirements in d20. So in example the first two work good for Paladin Detect Evil but not the third. The third would work for setting up a demon with "Spell-Like Abilities: At will—darkness, dispel magic, see invisibility, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only). Caster level 7th. "

 

[Kendall-DM]

Perfecto!

 

[Kendall-DM]

Found something in the changes to natural attacks and using weapons. It is modifying the Primary natural attack, making it look as if it is a secondary attack that can be done while using a weapon when, in fact, it cannot. I almost hosed my party last weekend with this. Luckily for them, I wasn't using the 'secondary' attack that was there until the last 3 or so rounds of the combat, and when I did I never hit with it.

In any case, I don't think that a primary attack, which cannot be used with a weapon, should be getting treated as a secondary attack when used with a weapon. It needs to indicate either/or, rather than implying that it can be used with the weapon.

Anyways, I hope that's clear. Trying to get out the door and just came across this while setting up for my 4th of July game. Let me know if I need to clarify this further.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Found something in the changes to natural attacks and using weapons. It is modifying the Primary natural attack, making it look as if it is a secondary attack that can be done while using a weapon when, in fact, it cannot. I almost hosed my party last weekend with this. Luckily for them, I wasn't using the 'secondary' attack that was there until the last 3 or so rounds of the combat, and when I did I never hit with it.

If you mix manufactured weapons and natural attacks the natural attacks become secondary.

If a creature has a bite attack and you equip a weapon the bite changes to a secondary attack.

Or are you saying that the monster had claw attacks and you equipped a two-handed sword? In that case the claw attacks should not be used but that is more left up to the person to figure out.

In any case, I don't think that a primary attack, which cannot be used with a weapon, should be getting treated as a secondary attack when used with a weapon. It needs to indicate either/or, rather than implying that it can be used with the weapon.

Natural attacks can be used with manufactured weapons. See the SRD HERE. Do you have a rules quote that shows you can't mix manufactured weapons and natural weapons?

Anyways, I hope that's clear. Trying to get out the door and just came across this while setting up for my 4th of July game. Let me know if I need to clarify this further.

Have a good 4th! Heading out soon myself!

When you get the chance maybe drop a few examples with current monsters. Just to make sure we are on the same page. Maybe I am just misunderstanding or you found a bug where something is not working correctly....

 

[Kendall-DM]

Ah, I've just looked that up. Crap, I didn't realize that rule existed for the secondary attacks, as I thought primary attacks were either/or. Been doing this wrong for years. My players aren't going to be happy with you. Or me.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Ah, I've just looked that up. Crap, I didn't realize that rule existed for the secondary attacks, as I thought primary attacks were either/or. Been doing this wrong for years. My players aren't going to be happy with you. Or me.

No problem it happens. I read the original Dwarf ability about never being slowed down to mean they could NEVER be encumbered. My group played with that rule for so long we now even have it as a house rule in Pathfinder.