5e Bug Reports (Part 5)

[HuseyinCinar]

Is Eladrin official removed entirely from 5E in FG? I can't seem to find it anymore.

The Eladrin race is in Mord's Tome of Foes iirc

[Zacchaeus]

Is Eladrin official removed entirely from 5E in FG? I can't seem to find it anymore.

There is a version of the Eladrin in the DMG and the main one as Husey says is in Mordenkainen's Tomb of Foes.

[mattekure]

The grid size on the Vault of Dragons players maps in Waterdeep Dragon Heist is wrong. The scale given in the image map is 1 square = 10 feet, the FG grids for all the player maps have grids of 1 square = 5', so its half the size it should be.

[Zacchaeus]

The grid size on the Vault of Dragons players maps in Waterdeep Dragon Heist is wrong. The scale given in the image map is 1 square = 10 feet, the FG grids for all the player maps have grids of 1 square = 5', so its half the size it should be.

Gah, so it is. I'll add it to my list.

[mattekure]

I just went through some more WDH maps.

Map Guest-Second-Players has no grid set
Map Guest-Third-Players has no grid set
Map Villa-Cellar-Players has no grid set

Map Xanathar-L1-Players has the wrong grid size. The scale given is 1 square= 10 feet.
Map Xanathar-L2-Players has the wrong grid size. The scale given is 1 square= 10 feet.

[dpezet]

There is a room in the Acquisitions Incorporated adventure that is coded incorrectly. The room is the "Secret Basement" that is found on the "Players - Map 3.2 Lighthouse Basement" and the DM version as well. The pin for the room is labeled "04.30.04.06 Secret Basement." The pin contains the notes for the "Super-Secret Basement" instead of the "Secret Basement." In the physical book, the Secret Basement is covered on page 130-131. The pin skips over those and starts with the notes on page 132. The room should include a large read aloud passage, a parcel with Hoobur's items, and an encounter with Hoobur, Talanatha, Wizzy and a Kegbot.

[Zacchaeus]

There is a room in the Acquisitions Incorporated adventure that is coded incorrectly. The room is the "Secret Basement" that is found on the "Players - Map 3.2 Lighthouse Basement" and the DM version as well. The pin for the room is labeled "04.30.04.06 Secret Basement." The pin contains the notes for the "Super-Secret Basement" instead of the "Secret Basement." In the physical book, the Secret Basement is covered on page 130-131. The pin skips over those and starts with the notes on page 132. The room should include a large read aloud passage, a parcel with Hoobur's items, and an encounter with Hoobur, Talanatha, Wizzy and a Kegbot.

THanks for reporting; I#ll let the developer know.

[Neovirtus]

No manual steps are taken after the module is par5ed. Exactly the same as if the module was exported from FG.
...

I agree. emdev's point was that for beginners it might not be obvious, just from that note, that something needs to be done in the character sheet in order for the item to work. I agree with that too, but this falls into the same category of the many other things that do not work out of the box. It's akin to equipping a Ring of Protection, for example, and having to create an effect to make it work. Here we would have to untick the disadvantage box if the armour is one that gives disadvantage. Not everything can be automated really (well it can given enough development time), so some manual intervention is needed now and again.

I don't understand why a template is being used here. It seems to me that the par5e system helps to get the large majority of the content into FG, and for most items it works well. That's all well and good. But in the case where it doesn't work, why wouldn't a "one off" item be created that had the correct properties? As LordEntrails said, I would never think to go through every parcel in an adventure and make sure they are coded properly. I hate to sound aggressive/insulting (so please don't take it that way) but I can't think of a better way of phrasing this: Isn't that what we're paying for when we buy a module? I think we all have reasonable expectations that sometimes things like this will be missed, and that's a "bug" that needs to be fixed. But to me, the idea that items would knowingly not be correct isn't cool. The fact that a lot of things don't have the effects written into them is already a bit of a sore spot with me (like your Ring of Protection example), and this seems a bit off as well. We always hear that FG modules aren't included with physical books or PDF's because they are separate efforts, with a developer who isn't the publisher doing all the translation work. To me, running it through par5e and then doing no further work isn't quite what I was expecting to hear.

[Zacchaeus]

I don't understand why a template is being used here. It seems to me that the par5e system helps to get the large majority of the content into FG, and for most items it works well. That's all well and good. But in the case where it doesn't work, why wouldn't a "one off" item be created that had the correct properties? As LordEntrails said, I would never think to go through every parcel in an adventure and make sure they are coded properly. I hate to sound aggressive/insulting (so please don't take it that way) but I can't think of a better way of phrasing this: Isn't that what we're paying for when we buy a module? I think we all have reasonable expectations that sometimes things like this will be missed, and that's a "bug" that needs to be fixed. But to me, the idea that items would knowingly not be correct isn't cool. The fact that a lot of things don't have the effects written into them is already a bit of a sore spot with me (like your Ring of Protection example), and this seems a bit off as well. We always hear that FG modules aren't included with physical books or PDF's because they are separate efforts, with a developer who isn't the publisher doing all the translation work. To me, running it through par5e and then doing no further work isn't quite what I was expecting to hear.

'Running it through par5e' takes weeks of work.

A template is used, as explained above, so that only one thing needs to be created which can then be merged with a list of mundane items to create the magic items. Otherwise every item would need to be created individually. I could, as noted, create special versions of the armours involved to remove the disadvantage but then that would mean those armours also being added to the equipment list and those would cause even more confusion.

I could, after the module is par5ed, change the xml file but that means having to do that every time the module gets updated and that means a lot of additional work and can also lead to all sorts of issues further down the road if, for example, another developer takes over the maintenance of these modules. It would also mean changing the xml files of any adventure modules that have Mithral Armours causing even more work. Hence I am not a fan of making manual changes to modules once they have been created. It's worth noting that the Mithral Armours in the DMG have existed in the same way for 5 years and no-one has mentioned those as a problem.

I accept that you take this as a bug, and that's fair enough. But right now there isn't anything I can do to easily fix it other than the actions I detailed in my original post.

[Neovirtus]

'Running it through par5e' takes weeks of work.

Fair enough. I don't mean to disparage anyone's efforts. I simply think the bar should be higher for a paid conversion, from a customer point of view. From the rest of your comments its clear the system is holding back the quality, not effort, which is a shame.

A template is used, as explained above, so that only one thing needs to be created which can then be merged with a list of mundane items to create the magic items. Otherwise every item would need to be created individually. I could, as noted, create special versions of the armours involved to remove the disadvantage but then that would mean those armours also being added to the equipment list and those would cause even more confusion.

I could, after the module is par5ed, change the xml file but that means having to do that every time the module gets updated and that means a lot of additional work and can also lead to all sorts of issues further down the road if, for example, another developer takes over the maintenance of these modules. It would also mean changing the xml files of any adventure modules that have Mithral Armours causing even more work.

What I take away from this is that the system in use doesn't really allow for items to be given the proper functions or effects, without an insane amount of effort on the developers' part. Speaks to an entirely different issue, which is pretty troubling to me.

Hence I am not a fan of making manual changes to modules once they have been created. It's worth noting that the Mithral Armours in the DMG have existed in the same way for 5 years and no-one has mentioned those as a problem...

Yeah, I agree that making manual changes doesn't make sense in that workflow. Regarding the existing items in the DMG, I take your point. It's not a big problem (especially in this one case), though I do question if the fact that most people don't notice or care about an issue means that it isn't a problem at all.

I think what has me bothered is that it's a symptom of the larger issue. There are a lot of different items that are likely not coded correctly (any variant armor/weapon types, plus magic items). On top of that, it sounds like the reason effects and other automation are not coded into the items is because of this problem as well. As a result, there is a whole secondary market of effect codings like Rob2e has made, simply to add the automation to things we bought. Nothing against Rob or anyone else making those items, they saw a need and they're filling it. But to me, those things should be included in the product. Not expecting anyone to read that and care, it's just MHO. Thanks for the perspective, I really do appreciate it.