Official Pathfinder Modules Bug Report Thread

[swest]

Hi swest,

Thanks for the report - I'll look into them.

The part about the image of Rukus Graul, however, is intentional. The image of Rukus, while it is labeled as such in Rise of the Runelords, is actually the stock image for all Ogrekin (which was introduced in Bestiary 2). So, since there are other ogrekin in the module, I left it generic so a GM can show the image to the players to show what ogrekin look like, not just Rukus.

For future reference, if a picture is associated with a monster/npc that has a stat block that creature's picture can be found by opening up the NPC record and clicking on the "other" tab. Within that, if there is an image associated with the monster/NPC, it will have a link. This works even for creatures whose NPCs are added to the combat tracker.

EDIT:

The issue with the Outdoor-2 map bringing up a new drawing doesn't seem to be happening for me. Have you tried updating? Perhaps create a test campaign file and try to see if there is an issue with your campaign file or not.

As for the fact that there are only 2 maps listed in the reference manual for use in random encounters, that is by design. It is not intended to use specific maps, such as the Graul Farmstead, for random encounters. There are two version of the same map (Outdoor and Outdoor-2). Only one of them is listed because there is no difference in the maps. The only reason 2 were created was due to organization and architectural reasons back when this was developed.

I can verify the issue with the bad table link and will fix that immediately, though it won't be in the live system until July 21st.

that creature's picture can be found by opening up the NPC record and clicking on the "other" tab.

D'Oh! I knew that... but didn't have the wits about me to look there. Thanks for the reminder.

The issue with the Outdoor-2 map bringing up a new drawing doesn't seem to be happening for me.

Yup, I went to a test campaign that I use for this sort of purpose and you are correct, it doesn't happen there. I wonder what's wrong in my current campaign? How might I suss out the cause?

But, hey... how about that Bad Link? (1 out of 3 ain't bad... I guess :-)

Thanks, and

Cheers!

- s.west

[swest]

The issue with the Outdoor-2 map bringing up a new drawing doesn't seem to be happening for me.

Yup, I went to a test campaign that I use for this sort of purpose and you are correct, it doesn't happen there. I wonder what's wrong in my current campaign? How might I suss out the cause?

.
.

- s.west

I had the "FG Battle Maps" module (which also contains that map) open in the campaign that exhibits the problem, and it contains that same map. I thought that might be what was going on, but alas, even after closing that module the Outdoor-2 map still exhibits the same symptom.

Still looking...

- s.west

p.s. Perhaps I shouldn't be adding these investigatory posts here? Does doing so add undesirable clutter to this thread (from the point of view of the folks that are looking in here to find new problem reports to work on)?

p.p.s. I'll solve the clutter question by just editing this post... @sciencephile, FYI, I closed all of the modules (except RotRL Chapter 3), and the problem with that map/link still exists. However, since this isn't an actual problem for me (I'm already using the other link to that same map), I'm not going to put any more time into figuring out what is going on. Needless to say, if you have other ideas about the cause, and you would like for me to explore, I will be happy to do so. Thanks, again.

[sciencephile]

I would have just privately messaged you but I think others can benefit ...

I have found that there can sometimes be issues with the module's temporary xml file that is contained in the campaign. That file allows for you to change things about the module for the campaign while leaving the original module content untouched.

moduledb.jpg

If you go to your Fantasy Grounds working folder and find the campaign folder, open it up. Then open the "moduledb" folder. I would delete the xml file in there for RotRL Chapter 3, copy it somewhere first if you have changes you made to the module you wish to save. That might help you.

I have honestly have seen cases where I have changed the code of a module and those changes *never* see the light of day until I delete the module in the campaign's moduledb folder. Sometimes Fantasy Grounds gets stuck and doesn't see the changes due to the content within the moduledb folder overriding those changes. If not for me using this trick, I would have pulled out all my hair long ago trying to troubleshoot errors that seemed to happen for no reason.

You can try that. Feel free to privately message me if you wish to take the troubleshooting offline. I will help as much as I can.

-Danny

[Zygmunt Molotch]

ah, I probably should have posted this here

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...ng-crit-damage

[bmos]

The spells in the Return of the Runelords APs have the classes abbreviated like "Clr" and "Wiz" rather than spelled out; this means that those spells aren't shown along with the other rulebooks when using the "Source" search feature.

Many class + level combinations are also listed twice, both uppercase and lowercase. I haven't been able to confirm why this is yet, although it seems like the module DBs contain these terms in lowercase and while they should be title case and FG is trying to consolidate by putting them in uppercase (but leaving the lowercase entries as well).

[Callum]

In Rise of the Runelords, Chapter 5, Sins of the Saviors, the grid on "Map - Shimmering Veils of Pride" is slightly the wrong scale and positioning. I managed to adjust it to fit well in my version, but thought you might like to correct it at the source.

[sciencephile]

The spells in the Return of the Runelords APs have the classes abbreviated like "Clr" and "Wiz" rather than spelled out; this means that those spells aren't shown along with the other rulebooks when using the "Source" search feature.

Many class + level combinations are also listed twice, both uppercase and lowercase. I haven't been able to confirm why this is yet, although it seems like the module DBs contain these terms in lowercase and while they should be title case and FG is trying to consolidate by putting them in uppercase (but leaving the lowercase entries as well).

Hi Bmos,

What you are seeing is essentially the difference between using the premium pathfinder core rulebook and the SRD. If you open up the SRD library, you will see that they all use the abbreviated spell convention too. The only reason the spells are in the modules is due to the fact that some NPC records have spells that link to other spells (like the way Monster Summoning II would have a link to Monster Summoning I). They are not meant to be used by the players or GM as a spell book but only there to make sure spell links in NPC spells don't break.

You will want to disregard these in general and use whatever normal source you use for spells (such as the premium pathfinder core rulebook).

Just to conclude, since the SRD still does it the same way, I don't think this can be solved on the module level. This is more of an across the board thing, since the SRD modle is the originating source of the abbreviated spell classes.

If you think there is a case where an actual new spell, etc. is listed as abbreviated (not just a reference spell link), please let me know with specific examples. Granted, I didn't spend more than a few minutes looking but all I saw that had the issue you mentioned was the spells that were there for linking purposes. Thanks.

[bmos]

Hi Bmos,

What you are seeing is essentially the difference between using the premium pathfinder core rulebook and the SRD. If you open up the SRD library, you will see that they all use the abbreviated spell convention too. The only reason the spells are in the modules is due to the fact that some NPC records have spells that link to other spells (like the way Monster Summoning II would have a link to Monster Summoning I). They are not meant to be used by the players or GM as a spell book but only there to make sure spell links in NPC spells don't break.

You will want to disregard these in general and use whatever normal source you use for spells (such as the premium pathfinder core rulebook).

Just to conclude, since the SRD still does it the same way, I don't think this can be solved on the module level. This is more of an across the board thing, since the SRD modle is the originating source of the abbreviated spell classes.

If you think there is a case where an actual new spell, etc. is listed as abbreviated (not just a reference spell link), please let me know with specific examples. Granted, I didn't spend more than a few minutes looking but all I saw that had the issue you mentioned was the spells that were there for linking purposes. Thanks.

Gotcha. That definitely clarifies it, thanks.
Any comment on the uppercase/lowercase duplication?

[sciencephile]

Gotcha. That definitely clarifies it, thanks.
Any comment on the uppercase/lowercase duplication?

I can't replicate the uppercase situation. The closest I can get to replicating it is to have one in lowercase and another in title case.

As far as comment, I'm guessing that this may be fixed at a ruleset level in the future (making case not matter so much). The reason I say this is because I tried to replicate the situation in FGU. In FGU, the duplication does not show up if the only difference is case.

[bmos]

I can't replicate the uppercase situation. The closest I can get to replicating it is to have one in lowercase and another in title case.

As far as comment, I'm guessing that this may be fixed at a ruleset level in the future (making case not matter so much). The reason I say this is because I tried to replicate the situation in FGU. In FGU, the duplication does not show up if the only difference is case.

Awesome! 3.3.11 is looking to have a bunch of nice quality-of-life type improvements like this. Thanks for checking into that.