Release v3.1.1

[Moon Wizard]

Fantasy Grounds v3.1.1 is now available via the FG updater or via the FG installer on the Downloads page.

This release is primarily focused on fixes and minor enhancements.

It you want the details, a comprehensive list of patch notes is available here.

Cheers,
JPG

[lbealsjr]

Some nice fixes in this, thanks.

[dr_venture]

Sorry if this is an obvious question, but where do I list (what I consider to be a) bug... here or in the FG Wish List?

[Trenloe]

Sorry if this is an obvious question, but where do I list (what I consider to be a) bug... here or in the FG Wish List?

Here. The wish list is for new functionality/changes. Let's see if it's a bug first...

[dr_venture]

Maybe I'm missing something, but when an enemy's token becomes invisible on a battlemat, the targeting of that token by PCs is not cleared. The effect is that unless the GM remembers to clear targeting on tokens that become invisible, that token is essentially still easy to locate -- essentially still visible -- to any PCs who had the invisible token targeted before it was hidden. It seems clear to me that all player targeting of a token which becomes hidden/invisible to said players should be cleared automatically. If not always automatically, then at least as an Option. The cases where you would want to allow player to continue targeting a hidden token seem far, far fewer than the cases where you want the hidden token to actually be, you know, hidden.

Unfortunately, I've found several cases where players have continued to track the location of bad guy NPCs (without alerting me) for many rounds as they moved around the map before I realized that even though I had set the token to Hidden, the player still had the token targeted. Very frustrating.

[dulux-oz]

Unfortunately, I've found several cases where players have continued to track the location of bad guy NPCs (without alerting me) for many rounds as they moved around the map before I realized that even though I had set the token to Hidden, the player still had the token targeted. Very frustrating.

I hope you came up with a suitable... discouragement for them so that they never do something like that again!

[dr_venture]

I hope you came up with a suitable... discouragement for them so that they never do something like that again!

Nah, I'm just not that kind of GM -- I just note it and move on, though I might be less likely to be charitable towards that player in the future (the worm always turns sooner or later in RPGs). If it gets to the point where I have to say something along the lines of "please don't cheat" then that's someone I'd just rather not game with in the first place.

[dulux-oz]

Nah, I'm just not that kind of GM -- I just note it and move on, though I might be less likely to be charitable towards that player in the future (the worm always turns sooner or later in RPGs). If it gets to the point where I have to say something along the lines of "please don't cheat" then that's someone I'd just rather not game with in the first place.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child", as the old saying goes - no, I was thinking more along the lines of using it against them, such as having a "fake" invisible monster they can track using this technique while the real invisible monster sneaks around and bites them on the @rse!

I did something similar once in a face-to-face game: the Players used to love going invisible and then "backstabbing" (ie flanking for Rouge damage in 3E D&D) my BBEGs - and using the Party Rules Lawyer to the point of it being a major PITA.

So, I discovered that, according to the letter of the 3E Rules, the victim doesn't need to know he's being flanked for the attacker to get the bones (& a Rogue to get the extra damage) - a flaw in the Rules that has since been shutdown. So I put a 8th level Rouge against a 5th PC Fighter and then placed a 1st level Rouge with a simple Invisibility Spell behind the Fighter in Flanking Position. His sole job has to stay there so that the 8th level Rogue could continue to get his "backstab" bonus - and because the 1st level Rogue never attacked the Invisibility was never cancelled and the 8th level Rouge continued to kick the Fighter's @rse - and the Players could never work out how it was happening.

And the piece de résistance was that the Fighter was the Party Rules Lawyer

To the spirit of the Rules? No!

To the letter of the Rules? Yes!

Did it teach the Players not to be Rules Lawyers? Yes!

Did everyone have more fun in the end? Yes!

Am I am Evil SOB of a GM who you shouldn't fark with? Hell yes!

[Dakadin]

One thing to try doing right after you hide an NPC and before you move them is just hover your mouse over each of the PCs to see who they are targeting. Then I would just remove all of their targets.

[JohnD]

"Spare the rod and spoil the child", as the old saying goes - no, I was thinking more along the lines of using it against them, such as having a "fake" invisible monster they can track using this technique while the real invisible monster sneaks around and bites them on the @rse!

I did something similar once in a face-to-face game: the Players used to love going invisible and then "backstabbing" (ie flanking for Rouge damage in 3E D&D) my BBEGs - and using the Party Rules Lawyer to the point of it being a major PITA.

So, I discovered that, according to the letter of the 3E Rules, the victim doesn't need to know he's being flanked for the attacker to get the bones (& a Rogue to get the extra damage) - a flaw in the Rules that has since been shutdown. So I put a 8th level Rouge against a 5th PC Fighter and then placed a 1st level Rouge with a simple Invisibility Spell behind the Fighter in Flanking Position. His sole job has to stay there so that the 8th level Rogue could continue to get his "backstab" bonus - and because the 1st level Rogue never attacked the Invisibility was never cancelled and the 8th level Rouge continued to kick the Fighter's @rse - and the Players could never work out how it was happening.

And the piece de résistance was that the Fighter was the Party Rules Lawyer

To the spirit of the Rules? No!

To the letter of the Rules? Yes!

Did it teach the Players not to be Rules Lawyers? Yes!

Did everyone have more fun in the end? Yes!

Am I am Evil SOB of a GM who you shouldn't fark with? Hell yes!