Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last
  1. #1

    5e Questions - Magic Setup...

    A couple of quick questions:

    1. What is the point of the "magic" radio button in the cast spell effect setup in the 5e client? 5e does not have SR and the magic circle does not automatically include the "magic" damage type when applying damage from that effect. Also, when I put IMMUNE:magic on the target, the target did not reject the cast, even though the "magic" circle was checked. It looks like the only way to achieve magic resistance is to explicity note "magic" in the damage type of the damaging effect like: "4d8 necromantic,magic" and to explicity include RESIST:magic on the target. So, does the magic radio button have any function? My expectation was that if I checked it that there would be an automatic magic tag added to any cast I use or damage I apply.

    2. Why doesn't the FG spell block setup sheet in the 5e client have entry fields for the ATTACK/SAVE type and the DAMAGE/EFFECT type? For example, as in the spell Acid Arrow. There is nowhere to enter the text for those extra fields, except in the main description. The setup that FG uses does not match the typical 5e spell descriptor block and these fields should probably be present/added.



    The missing fields in the FG setup make it harder to see at a glance what the spell is supposed to do.

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by HoloGnome; December 8th, 2019 at 11:42.
    FG Wish List - http://fg2app.idea.informer.com/
    License: Ultimate [Unlicensed/Free Trial FG users can play in my games]
    Teamspeak: ts.fg-con.com (alternate server in case of trouble: voice.fg-con.com)
    Password: Dungeoneers
    FG Server Alias: cold wand bold fang

  2. #2
    damned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    20,247
    Blog Entries
    1
    The fields are not missing according to the Players Handbook. If you look at the hardback version and the FG version they are represented almost identically
    FG parses the 5e spell descriptions which use a consistent way of describing the spells, and builds the actions from that

    MoreCore - Generic Ruleset
    --- Projects ---
    Extensions | Tutorials | MoreCore | MoreCore Themes | Call of Cthulhu | Maelstrom | FG Con

  3. #3
    True. I just looked at my PHB. But, it's not really optimal, makes things harder for the GM, and doesn't match the newer digital resources at dndbeyond. It might be worth considering a change to improve usability and match the sanctioned online tool.
    FG Wish List - http://fg2app.idea.informer.com/
    License: Ultimate [Unlicensed/Free Trial FG users can play in my games]
    Teamspeak: ts.fg-con.com (alternate server in case of trouble: voice.fg-con.com)
    Password: Dungeoneers
    FG Server Alias: cold wand bold fang

  4. #4
    mattekure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    590
    Uh, FG is every bit as sanctioned as D&D Beyond. They are different products, and both try to present the info in a way that is consistent with the source and useful.

  5. #5
    damned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    20,247
    Blog Entries
    1
    HoloGnome are you new to 5E on FG?
    Add a spell to your Actions tab and check it out.
    Edit some values on the spell and then right click it and choose reparse.

    MoreCore - Generic Ruleset
    --- Projects ---
    Extensions | Tutorials | MoreCore | MoreCore Themes | Call of Cthulhu | Maelstrom | FG Con

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by HoloGnome View Post
    True. I just looked at my PHB. But, it's not really optimal, makes things harder for the GM, and doesn't match the newer digital resources at dndbeyond.
    You are more than welcome to contact Wizards of the Coast and request that they add the fields that D&D Beyond uses to their hardcovers so that the PHB is optimal.
    I never claimed to be sane. Besides, it's more fun this way.

  7. #7
    I’m not sure what help “Attack/Save: Ranged” is when it already says the spell’s range is 90 ft. I’d really like to know what the added benefit is there.

    The damage type is clear where it says “4d4 acid damage” in the spell description. FG parses that text and handles the damage type appropriately.

    Both seem redundant to me.
    Last edited by notrealdan; December 8th, 2019 at 16:09. Reason: Typo

  8. #8
    It just occurred to me how these fields could be useful, and are used this way on DDB: filtering.

    Say you wanted to find all spells that do acid damage at range. Those categories could be useful for filtering the spells to show just ones that match that.
    spell_filter.jpg

    I don't know a way to do the same search in FG.
    Last edited by notrealdan; December 8th, 2019 at 16:31. Reason: Added screenshot

  9. #9
    Zacchaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,564
    As regards your first question all of the spells in 5e are explicitly magic; in other words when you make a spell attack FG knows that this is a magical attack.

    There is no such thing as immunity to magic in the 5e ruleset. Some creatures have resistance to magic which allows them advantage on any saving throw against magic. Such creatures will have a trait called Magic Resistance and FG knows to make any saving throws with advantage when such a creature is subjected to a spell attack that allows a saving throw. You can add this as an effect to a player character as well which will do the same thing.

    Whilst there is no immunity to magic there is immunity (and resistance) to damage types. So, whilst a creature might not be able to resist a fireball just because it is magic they can certainly be immune to fire damage. In your example there is no such thing as necromantic damage. There is however necrotic damage which would likely be the damage type favoured by necromancers.

    The magic tick box is there so that items such as weapons and armour can be classed as magic items. Weapons with the magic box ticked automatically do magic damage in addition to their normal damage.
    If there is something that you would like to see in Fantasy Grounds that isn't currently part of the software or if there is something you think would improve a ruleset then add your idea to the wish list http://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by zacchaeus
    "The magic tick box is there so that items such as weapons and armour can be classed as magic items. Weapons with the magic box ticked automatically do magic damage in addition to their normal damage."
    Thanks - appreciate it. I will try it out. My initial expectation was that it would add the magic damage type to spells and then reduce by half, but that's not really a thing in 5e, as you say. Otherwise, I think there are some cases of immunity to magic in 5e, but I believe it was working in the CT, as far as I could tell. I will check the advantage on saves for the magic radio check. I didn't think of that and am still digesting rules. I just started looking at the PHB. I will also check the weapons - thanks for the pointers.

    On immunity, I just did some searching and I could only come up with 2 creatures in 5e that have magic immunity (limited). I thought there were others...but maybe just resistance which translates to ADV. The immune creatres are: the Rakshasa, which has limited immunity to spells lower than 7th level. The other is the Helmed Horror that, upon creation, is immune to specific spells (typically fireball, heat metal and lightning bolt). There may be others. But, I thought I saw IMMUNE:magic working in the CT. But, no way to add a level descriptor. It might be interesting if you could define an effect like IMMUNE:magic[level] for immunity to level 6 and lower spells or IMMUNE:magic[spellname]...but...definitely low utility with only 2 creatures. Another cool effect would be REFLECT:magic[spellname] to match the related 5e creature abilities. But again...corner cases that GMs can manage.

    Quote Originally Posted by zacchaeus
    "There is however necrotic damage which would likely be the damage type favoured by necromancers."
    Yeah, yeah - sorry - that was just a typo - I was in a hurry. I, of course, meant necrotic since I was setting up the spell effect for the "Toll the Dead" cantrip for a Wizard. There are some low-level spells in 5e that do a surprising amount of damage. Inflict Wounds, Catapult, etc. 3d10 for Inflict at 1st level - yikes!


    Quote Originally Posted by Nickademus
    "You are more than welcome to contact Wizards of the Coast and request that they add the fields that D&D Beyond uses to their hardcovers so that the PHB is optimal. "
    Thanks, Nickademus. Not super-helpful in this particular discussion, but the 5e ruleset owners might want to do a usability review or just have a discussion to see if any improvements make sense, especially in a world where there may be future online competition vs. the dndbeyond solution, for example. I think they've declared an online 5e gaming client. So, in that kind of discussion, other than the time it takes to add a couple of fields, what is the downside to trying to improve the usability of the 5e spellbook for players and GMs, since a digital version is highly malleable/editable? Yeah...there's value in doing things exactly as they are done in the PHB, but what prevents adding digital usability improvements? The PHB also doesn't have hyperlink indexing, etc., but that's not a reason for them not to be there as usability aids. It just seems like a really useful addition. As a GM, I know I would certainly appreciate being able to glance at a spell block and see everything I need when trying to manage all the details of combat. If the ruleset owners don't want to do it, fine. The spell library can be exactly like the harder-to-use PHB and doesn't have to capitalize on the primary advantage of being a digital resource, which is the ability to have added flexibility and usability vs. printed material.

    Quote Originally Posted by damned
    HoloGnome are you new to 5E on FG?
    Yeah - I've just started looking at in the past couple of weeks to run a campaign with a friend. It's a little bit disorienting after all the PF, but getting used to it. There is a lot to like about it - very different approach to multiclassing and spell use, for example. I will do some more testing on the spell setup. I am just barely starting to get used to every positive or negative condition that PF handles differently offering ADV/DIS in 5e, respectively. Speaking of which, on the rules side, I probably would have preferred not to have all the specially named commands. It would have been easier crossover (for me) if the syntax were more like: ATK:ADV or SAVEIS - just associating ADV or DIS with the already existing base types...but I realize there are more complicated situations that can arise like GRANTADVATK, etc., where the effect might not map so well. Anyway...still getting used to it.
    FG Wish List - http://fg2app.idea.informer.com/
    License: Ultimate [Unlicensed/Free Trial FG users can play in my games]
    Teamspeak: ts.fg-con.com (alternate server in case of trouble: voice.fg-con.com)
    Password: Dungeoneers
    FG Server Alias: cold wand bold fang

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in