Question On Effects.

[Trenloe]

I've never seen the numbers in the chat message not accurately represent the changes from effects.

This is due to conditional targeted effects (IFT) as mentioned in another thread you're involved in. This functionality has been around for quite some time now, had a quick look for when MW first described the operation of this but can't find it quickly.

[brautigan1]

I hate to insult the mastermind behind the effects wiki, but the examples given there aren't enough. The modifiers themselves are fantastic. The presentation of the wiki is just bad. The syntax for the descriptors of modifiers remains pretty unclear there.

Furthermore, Fantasy Grounds deserves a "no-typing" effects creation interface with drop down menus for selecting modifiers and their descriptors (imo).

[Trenloe]

Furthermore, Fantasy Grounds deserves a "no-typing" effects creation interface with drop down menus for selecting modifiers and their descriptors (imo).

Add it to the wishlist: https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

[bnickelsen]

Continuing on with effects

I added an Action to a player from a magic item and that effect is the target makes a save for "X" or is "Prone"

I added to that action two entries,
1. A "Cast" with save info
2. an "Effect" so this is where I hit one question. Can simple enter "Prone" or do I need the full text (Prone;DISATK, GRANTADVATK: melee, GRANTDISATK: ranged)

Is the a way to apply the effect automatically when the save fails?
Attachment 10547

[Trenloe]

Can simple enter "Prone" or do I need the full text (Prone;DISATK, GRANTADVATK: melee, GRANTDISATK: ranged)

Just use the word Prone Any of the conditions listed here are applied using the word of the condition listed and FG applies the "Modifiers applied" automatically: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/...cts#Conditions

Is the a way to apply the effect automatically when the save fails?

No, you need to do this as a second step. Just like rolling an attack and damage is a two stage process, triggering a save and applying the result is a two step process. It allows the GM to double check the result, manually apply any modifiers not added before the roll and do a final adjudication on whether the save succeeded or failed before the effect is applied.

[brautigan1]

On that note, Trenloe, perhaps another item I could add to the wishlist:

Action "chains," in which specific, named casts could be linked to specifically linked damages, heals, and effects.

So if you created a cast action within, say, a spell, you could give it a field to enter a unique identifier, and then, in each of the other actions associated with that spell, you could create a "chain to" field, in which you would enter the identifier you created for the cast action. On a failed save, the "cast" identifier would return true for the other actions in the chain, and those actions would be applied automatically to the targets that failed the save.

This is the kind of thing that would really, really send FG through the stratosphere, honestly. Hard stuff, but so, so worth it, imo.

[Trenloe]

On that note, Trenloe, perhaps another item I could add to the wishlist:

Action "chains," in which specific, named casts could be linked to specific, linked damages, heals, and effects.

So if you created a cast action within, say, a spell, you could give it a field to enter a unique identifier, and then, in each of the other actions associated with that spell, you could create a "chain to" identifier. On a failed save, the identifier would return true for the other actions in the chain, and those actions would be applied automatically to the targets that failed the save.

This is the kind of thing that would really, really send FG through the stratosphere, honestly. Hard stuff, but so, so worth it, imo.

Don't ask me about it, I'm not a FG developer! Add it to the FG wishlist.

But, to be honest, the developers have stated in the past that they won't do this type of functionality (who knows, they might change their mind). This is going way into full automation and adds more and more complexity (more coding, more support, more confusion from users, etc.), removes DM adjudication (mentioned above), relies on the players having all of their effects/modifiers 100% correct before pressing the "cast" button, etc..

The current process is pressing the cast button, the GM reviewing the results to make sure everything is correct and giving the go ahead to then press the effect button to apply relevant effects. Is this such a laborious process that requires 100% automation? We're playing role-playing games here, not MMOs.

But, what do I know? Go ahead, please add your request to the wishlist and let those that matter decide.

[brautigan1]

Hehe, I understand you're not a dev, Trenloe... but you're a good guy to talk to about this stuff anyway, as you just proved with your last post. I had no idea they were against this sort of thing. So in spite of the fact you seem averse to me continuing here with the discussion, I will point out that even though such identifier fields would be available, they wouldn't be required to be used. Leave the chain field blank in the other actions, and they just wouldn't happen when you hit the "cast" button. So, essentially, it would remain optional by its very nature.

Options are good, and the idea that automation should be kept to a certain limit... well, it seems to me it can only be a good thing to allow the users to decide that limit.

If you don't want to have a discussion with me on the topic, I understand. Just ignore, hehe.

[Trenloe]

If you don't want to have a discussion with me on the topic, I understand. Just ignore, hehe.

No worries. If I didn't want to continue/have a discussion on it I wouldn't have replied. I was pointing you to the wishlist so that your request is logged in the right place and so won't get lost. I agree, options are good. The usual FG issues come in here - lots of valuable dev work both now and in the future to provide/support very complex functionality across multiple rulesets that's heading down the road of 100% automation that, in itself, brings in more issues...

But, on further reflection, some (optional) way of chaining effect events together might be useful; maybe; perhaps; possibly...

[brautigan1]

Cheers!