Kelrugem's extensions

[Kelrugem]

I was checking the updates there, and in the save versus tag I just noticed you talk about a "ROLLON" effect... I think I totally missed it so far: what does it do?
"

It automatically rolls on a table at the beginning of someone's turn

So, e.g. when you have the effect ROLLON: confusion and some table with the name confusion, then it will automatically roll on that table at the beginning of that person's turn (it has the same options as the /rollon macro )

[Asgurgolas]

Awesome :O

[Kelrugem]

I need to do some survey:

Would it be okay when I would just offer the FullOverlay Package (plus a version for StrainInury and StrainInury with the Overlays) instead of separate versions for just Save versus Tags and advanced 3.5e/PF1 and their packages/combinations? I would add an option in the FullOverlay extension with which you can define whether you get overlays or not (maybe with some granularity whether just wounds overlays, or just save overlays, or both for example)

The reason why I am asking is that maintaining the extensions is immense already and that is probably due to all the packages. Either I need to ask an IT professional how they do such things or I just offer the "product with everything" for reducing the time for maintenance (The extensions reached a complexity which makes it impossible to just "copy&paste" into the packages For example, advanced 3.5e/PF1 completely rewrites the damage script as you probably know, and that I can't simply copy&paste into StrainInjury for example due to the different hitpoint system there ) I have seen that when someone uses my extensions, then at least save versus tags and the advanced 3.5e/PF1 and not just one of both. But not everyone wants to have the overlays, which is the reason why I would add an option in the overlay extension then

I would keep the subthreads for listing the features but it may be easier for me that I only need to change two/three extensions when I add new features (antimagic, height etc. still stay separate, they are simple enough in that regard)

When I would do this then in some months probably, e.g. when 3.3.12 is released. I just do some brainstorming about how to treat my extensions (and then it is probably also easier for users to see what they need to download)

[Asgurgolas]

I'd be in for the whole package with the possibly to toggle the overlay parts :P
that full overlay package became my staple extension by now :°D

[Svandal]

Sounds good to me. We use the full overlay + height extensions.

[bmos]

Same, although the if checks to disable that part should hopefully be placed in such a way to maximize compatibility.
I think the overlays part has more conflicts with other extensions?

I've been meaning to switch to FullOverlays anyway and just haven't had time to vet it for compatibility.

[Kelrugem]

Thanks for the answers

Same, although the if checks to disable that part should hopefully be placed in such a way to maximize compatibility.
I think the overlays part has more conflicts with other extensions?

I've been meaning to switch to FullOverlays anyway and just haven't had time to vet it for compatibility.

Yeah, the overlay part is completely in ManagerToken2 But I do not need to overwrite that on a second sight. So, I will probably create a new ManagerToken3 for better compatibility and then there will be the if-check part whether the overlays are used That should be the best compatibility option (of course, the function to call and change the overlay depending on the result of a save etc. has to be in the corresponding script, that can in general cause incompatibilities; but these scripts are normally already overwritten by my extensions without the overlays )

I also intend to add every feature and its description into the cheat sheet. All the threads already become very unreadable such that the cheat sheet as a manual might be a good separate option

[darrenan]

In my game on Sunday, I had an NPC with this ability:

Unusual Anatomy (Ex)
A denizen’s internal anatomy varies from individual to individual, and has a 50% chance to treat any critical hit or sneak attack against it as a normal hit.

For which I applied the "FORTIF: 50 all" effect. But it seemed to be applied incorrectly in this case, perhaps you can tell me why:

Raevik Sinnethar: [CAST] Mind Thrust VI [at Weiralai]
Weiralai: [SAVE] Will [SPELL] [DIVINATION] [EFFECTS -6] [DISADV] [1d20+11 = 14]
Save [14][vs. DC 24] -> [for Weiralai] [vs Raevik Sinnethar] [FAILURE]
Raevik Sinnethar: [CL CHECK] Mind Thrust VI [at Weiralai] [SUCCESS] [1d20+17 = 36]
Effect ['Exhausted; Stunned'] -> [to Weiralai] [by Raevik Sinnethar]
Raevik Sinnethar: [DAMAGE] Mind Thrust VI [TYPE: spell (13d8+13=66)] [13d8+13 = 66]
Raevik Sinnethar: [FORTIFICATION CHANCE 50][vs. spell][to Weiralai][ZERO DMG] [1d100 = 29]
Damage [0] -> [to Weiralai] [RESISTED]

Weiralai is a Denizen of Leng with some Cleric levels for reference.

[Kelrugem]

In my game on Sunday, I had an NPC with this ability:

Unusual Anatomy (Ex)
A denizen’s internal anatomy varies from individual to individual, and has a 50% chance to treat any critical hit or sneak attack against it as a normal hit.

For which I applied the "FORTIF: 50 all" effect. But it seemed to be applied incorrectly in this case, perhaps you can tell me why:

Raevik Sinnethar: [CAST] Mind Thrust VI [at Weiralai]
Weiralai: [SAVE] Will [SPELL] [DIVINATION] [EFFECTS -6] [DISADV] [1d20+11 = 14]
Save [14][vs. DC 24] -> [for Weiralai] [vs Raevik Sinnethar] [FAILURE]
Raevik Sinnethar: [CL CHECK] Mind Thrust VI [at Weiralai] [SUCCESS] [1d20+17 = 36]
Effect ['Exhausted; Stunned'] -> [to Weiralai] [by Raevik Sinnethar]
Raevik Sinnethar: [DAMAGE] Mind Thrust VI [TYPE: spell (13d8+13=66)] [13d8+13 = 66]
Raevik Sinnethar: [FORTIFICATION CHANCE 50][vs. spell][to Weiralai][ZERO DMG] [1d100 = 29]
Damage [0] -> [to Weiralai] [RESISTED]

Weiralai is a Denizen of Leng with some Cleric levels for reference.

The fortification effect is very universally coded, that means that it technically allows every damage type So, the all-descriptor would tell FG that it does test fortification for every damage type and explains what you are seeing; the effect you need is: FORTIF: 50 critical; FORTIF: 50 precision Then it applies only to sneak and critical hits I didn't restrict the amount of available damage types for this effect because there was no need to, one can cover the standard definition of fortification, but one can define its usage to other damage types if one wants but it is optional of course (and if I remember correctly, some people needed something similar for weapon damage types)

[darrenan]

Oh ok. I thought sneak attack and so forth were built into FORTIF. Where is the definitive documentation on that effect? In this thread at the top?

There is another case that can't be handled because there isn't a 'sneak attack' damage type that is separate from precision. There are some abilities, such as the Investigator's Studied Combat, that deal precision damage, but only for the purpose of not multiplying on a crit, they are otherwise not treated as sneak attacks and so should not be subject to the fortification effect of the ability above.

Can arbitrary damage types be used? For instance, could I use FORTIF: 50 sneak; FORTIF: 50 critical