Official Pathfinder Modules Bug Report Thread

[Dholo]

I don't have one handy at the moment, but we encountered this with "The Scarecrow" from chapter 2 of Rise of the Runelords. He's a large enemy with the specific 2 line type I posted above.

Give a player this effect:
`IFT: SIZE(>=Large); ATK:1`

This should add 1 to attack rolls vs all large or greater sized creatures. Attack The Scarecrow and it will not add 1. If you switch the two lines of the "type" field so it's

CE Large construct
Awakened flesh golem

The effect works properly. It appears that the word "Large" must be in the first line of the type field text for the effect to work properly. I can give a screenshot later if you need more help reproducing this.

[Moon Wizard]

Yes, the code that checks was designed to assume that the <alignment> <size> <type> is the first thing in the Type field; so this has been around for awhile. It looks like the PF stat block format and data in the fields has drifted over time. I'll see if I can make it a per-line check for that format.

Regards,
JPG

[Dholo]

Excellent! This wouldn't really be a problem if I was entering this data myself. The big issue is that this is how many many many of the custom NPCs are set up in pre-packaged campaigns like "Rise of the Runelords". Without the effect checking multiple lines of the type fields, or without editing every NPC which has a 2-line type field, these types of effects just flat out don't work with the official released FG content.

[drakir]

I have always included the PF Naval Combat module as a matter of course, even though I could never figure out how to get it to work. Today, all of my PCs appear in the combat tracker as per the attachment. Looks to me like the new software version broke the module.
However, I also just threw a swath of modules on to enable the Extended Spellbook, so that may be part of it too.
However, disabling the naval combat module seems to have fixed things so that's more evidence it's the naval combat?
Hope this is clear enough to help...

[sciencephile]

I have always included the PF Naval Combat module as a matter of course, even though I could never figure out how to get it to work. Today, all of my PCs appear in the combat tracker as per the attachment. Looks to me like the new software version broke the module.
However, I also just threw a swath of modules on to enable the Extended Spellbook, so that may be part of it too.
However, disabling the naval combat module seems to have fixed things so that's more evidence it's the naval combat?
Hope this is clear enough to help...

Since the potential culprit is suspected to be the Naval Combat extension, I wouldn't necessarily rely on reverse logic (that it is disabled and everything else works). You may want to try disabling all your other extensions and *only* having the naval combat one loaded to see if the problem still exists. Generally, all extensions override basic code to either add or change functionality so you don't want to work with multiple variables. Therefore, it is best to start with just the one loaded. If it is a problem, you found it. If it works, then try loading back each extension one at a time and loading to see when it breaks. Then it helps determine the environment that is causing the issue. This not only pertains to this particular instance but is advice for any future potential extension issues you might have in the future (a good troubleshooting mechanism).

[Moon Wizard]

I'm not getting that error with the Naval Combat extension by itself.

Regards,
JPG

[drakir]

Since the potential culprit is suspected to be the Naval Combat extension, I wouldn't necessarily rely on reverse logic (that it is disabled and everything else works). You may want to try disabling all your other extensions and *only* having the naval combat one loaded to see if the problem still exists. Generally, all extensions override basic code to either add or change functionality so you don't want to work with multiple variables. Therefore, it is best to start with just the one loaded. If it is a problem, you found it. If it works, then try loading back each extension one at a time and loading to see when it breaks. Then it helps determine the environment that is causing the issue. This not only pertains to this particular instance but is advice for any future potential extension issues you might have in the future (a good troubleshooting mechanism).

sciencephile, you are as wise as you are intelligent.
Went through systematically adding modules until I triggered the bug, then stripped back to confirm. It's caused by interaction between the Naval Combat extension and the Extended Automation and Overlays extension. As Naval Combat is official, I'm gathering the right thing to do would be to report the problem to the developer of Extended Automation and Overlays?

[Kelrugem]

sciencephile, you are as wise as you are intelligent.
Went through systematically adding modules until I triggered the bug, then stripped back to confirm. It's caused by interaction between the Naval Combat extension and the Extended Automation and Overlays extension. As Naval Combat is official, I'm gathering the right thing to do would be to report the problem to the developer of Extended Automation and Overlays?

I know of this incompatibility, but I mentioned it in a hidden way, I think (for example here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post452699. I am not sure whether I mention it on the forge page)

Right now I have sadly no intent to make both versions compatible. On one hand I would need to purchase it, and on the other hand I got already an older version from the dev in the past: It would be difficult to make my extension compatible with naval combat without implementing the features of naval combat. (Not difficult but tedious) And, at least the last time I looked at it, its code was a bit outdated compared with the actual ruleset code (even if it didn't throw errors it may still overwrite certain newer codes). But the latter may not apply anymore

In my personal opinion I find it okay to sell extensions via the shop as long as its code does not interfere with the ruleset code. But this extension changes a lot of the base code and then it should rather be in the base ruleset itself Would have the advantages that community devs have easy access and no-one accidentally forgets to maintain it even if the corresponding community dev is gone (naval combat does not come directly from SmiteWorks if I am not wrong)

So, right now you sadly have to decide whether you use naval combat or the extended automation extension; I am sorry for the inconveniences

[sciencephile]

@Kelrugem, I sent you a private message. Not sure if you can receive them or not or look out for them. Just a heads up as maybe I have a way to help (potentially).

[Kelrugem]

Thanks I just answered