Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last
  1. #11
    Zacchaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    11,845
    Yes, you are going to have to handle the edge cases like the Helmed Horror manually. there isn't a way to specify an exact immunity. Placing an effect of IMMUNE: magic on a player (or NPC) does indeed make them immune to magic damage. However the damage must specify that it is magic damage. Interestingly Cone of Cold specifies cold, magic damage whereas Fireball only mentions fire. I wonder why that is.
    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/

  2. #12
    When I was testing very early this morning, what I think I saw was that putting magic in the damage descriptor caused it to reduce by half (even though that's not the rule). I thought I saw IMMUNE work, and if magic is in Cone of Cold, then it may not work correctly against monsters that have magic resistance. I will do another quick test.

    Edit - Repeated testing. OK, similar to what I saw this morning, in the 5e client...:
    1. If IMMUNE:magic is on the target and magic is in the damage descriptor, the target takes no damage, as might be expected, even if the damage type contains other descriptors.
    2. If RESIST:magic is on the target and magic is in the damage descriptor, the target takes half damage (but that is not a thing in 5e).
    3. If RESIST:magic;RESIST:cold is on the target and magic,cold is in the damage descriptor, the target takes half damage (so Cone of Cold would still work properly.)
    4. When I drag Cone of Cold from the spell library, my effect only shows cold and not cold,magic. (By the way - really nice that spells auto-populate in the correct level slot!)
    5. If RESIST:magic is on the target and the "magic" radio button is checked in the cast effect setup, there is no automatic advantage roll on the save. So maybe that is not working as intended?
    6. IF ADVSAV is on the target, then it makes 2 saves on the cast, of course.
    7. The same cases above are problems with the VULN effect (...and DISSAV is working properly when explicitly defined on the target, similar to #6).

    So...maybe at least 2 bugs above, which are:
    1. Checking the magic radio button on the cast effect setup should cause the target to save with ADVANTAGE on cast if they have the RESIST:magic effect active (and again, thanks)
    2. Checking the magic radio button on the cast effect setup should cause the target to save with DISADVANTAGE on cast if they have the VULN:magic effect active (currently not working)

    2 Caveats:
    1. RESIST:magic halves weapon damage, so not a bug and spells MUST NOT have the magic descriptor if they do spell damage.
    2. VULN:magic doubles weapon damage, so spells MUST NOT have the magic descriptor if they do spell damage.
    I have to read some more on these 2 cases to understand how non-magical vs. magical weapon resistance might resolve. For example, if the creature is immune to normal bludgeoning damage and has magic resistance, it should take no damage from a normal bludgeoning weapon and half damage from a magical bludgeoning weapon, but I haven't done that test yet.

    A quick test on the caveat case wasn't looking too good, but then I found the combination effect in the wiki - [damage type],!magic -- and that is working. And, if I set [damage type],!magic; RESIST:magic, then normal damage is blocked and magic weapon damage is halved (like for a creature that is immune to normal weapons and also has magic resistance). OK - I think I've got the syntax that works for weapons!

    (Also...going back to my very first post, this behavior, in part, is why I posted, because I couldn't figure out what the magic radio button on the cast effect for a spell was supposed to do...but hadn't yet had the tip from Zacchaeus about ADV/DIS, etc.)

    I would not say that IMMUNE:magic blocking spell damage is a problem, because that's what it should do and there are some creatures that it would benefit, like Rakshasa and Helmed Horror. So, it is working as it should and is defined in the 5e SRD.
    Last edited by HoloGnome; December 9th, 2019 at 02:41.
    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

  3. #13
    Zacchaeus - I can't seem to get the Incorporeal condition tag to work - have you tried 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

  4. #14
    Zacchaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    11,845
    Quote Originally Posted by HoloGnome View Post
    Zacchaeus - I can't seem to get the Incorporeal condition tag to work - have you tried it?
    Incorporeal isn't a condition - so FG doesn't recognise it (see the Wiki for the list of conditions and what FG does with them). This is something of a Theatre of the Mind thing rather than a condition really.
    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/

  5. #15
    Thanks - I see...so there's no longer any incorporeal subtype and the monsters just explicitly have specifically defined resistances. When I was reading through the 5e wiki, I saw it and thought that it was still used.

    Anyway - the FG 5e wiki (which is what led to my above post), does, in fact, define Incorporeal as a 5e condition that aliases to: RESIST:all (which is not correct since the resistances of incorporeal undead are defined and may not include all forms...like cold and necrotic, which are usually immunities instead). And, I agree with you that FG doesn't recognize it, because it doesn't work, as above.

    So, in that case, someone needs to remove it from the 5e wiki page condition table.
    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

  6. #16
    Zacchaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    11,845
    Quote Originally Posted by HoloGnome View Post
    Thanks - I see...so there's no longer any incorporeal subtype and the monsters just explicitly have specifically defined resistances. When I was reading through the 5e wiki, I saw it and thought that it was still used.

    Anyway - the FG 5e wiki (which is what led to my above post), does, in fact, define Incorporeal as a 5e condition that aliases to: RESIST:all (which is not correct since the resistances of incorporeal undead are defined and may not include all forms...like cold and necrotic, which are usually immunities instead). And, I agree with you that FG doesn't recognize it, because it doesn't work, as above.

    So, in that case, someone needs to remove it from the 5e wiki page condition table.
    My apologies, I was mixing up ethereal and incorporeal and furthermore I didn't look at the wiki only the conditions in the PHB.

    Incorporeal is indeed in the wiki and it does indeed work as the wiki suggests. However I'm not aware of any creatures which are actually incorporeal so it is perhaps redundant. It may be that incorporeal (like intoxicated) was a condition which only existed when 5e was D&D Next and was dropped before the final release. It's still a condition recognised by FG and it does work so I think I'll leave it in the Wiki.
    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/

  7. #17
    I don't think there are any icorporeal type creatures based on my previous check -- let's see: ghost, wraith (various types maybe), specter, etc. They just have incorporeal movement. The only point of equivocation might be in spells like gaseous form that refer to incorporeal creatures.

    Anyway - up to you if you want to leave it. However, it provides misinformation when trying to learn valid conditions for 5e, so it might be a good idea to indicate that there is no such thing as an incorporeal type creature in 5e and the effect alias has no meaning.

    Also, as in my earlier post, incorporeal was not being recognized by FG. If it works now, it was changed in a recent release. Yes - I just checked it and it is now working...so it was apparently updated.

    However, the other bugs/issues relating to the magic radio button, etc., as noted above are still there.
    Last edited by HoloGnome; December 15th, 2019 at 01:44.
    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

  8. #18
    Zacchaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    11,845
    There have been no recent client updates so I can only assume user error on the incorporeal front.

    I’m not sure what bugs you are referring to. As I said before resistance to magic allows advantage on a saving throw. The RESIST keyword is used to half damage; that is damage from one if the damage types in the 5e ruleset. Magic is not a damage type per se; it is included in the ruleset so that magic weapons can overcome resistance and creatures with magic resistance get advantage on their saving throws. RESIST: magic is a non sequitur and will be ignored by FG as far as I am aware. Since FG doesn’t recognise the damage type it will ignore the magic bit and treat the effect as simply RESIST: which, without a recognised damage type will be treated as all. Hence any damage dealt will be halved. I haven’t tested that but that is my theory.

    In summary you are trying to use the resistance and immune effects incorrectly with magic; hence the results you are seeing.
    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/

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Zacchaeus View Post
    There have been no recent client updates so I can only assume user error on the incorporeal front.
    Wellll...no. I know what I saw when I was doing my testing, and I actually tested it multiple times and even double- and triple-checked it before posting above. Since then, there have been multiple updates. However, I didn't exactly watch what was being updated. But, previously, applying the condition "incorporeal" (as the only condition) had absolutely no effect in 5e when different types of damage were applied to that creature, as reported. Now, it does. So, either there was a change or update to Fantasy Grounds that is affecting this issue, or it was previously a Fantasy Grounds error (which is not necessarily an uncommon occurrence), but the latter also seems unlikely after multiple iterations (and I think I restarted the client at least once). So, that points to an update as the likely thing that changed.

    Also, I respectfully suggest that if you leave incorporeal in the wiki without an explanation that it is not a legal condition, then it may potentially misinform cross-over/new ruleset users (such as me, for example) who don't (or didn't) realize that there is no incorporeal condition in 5e (despite being present in other rulesets)...only incorporeal movement. It's up to you, I guess -- leave an illegal condition in place in the docs without explanation and confuse people despite real-world user feedback...or take a moment to clarify it (a very simple task).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zacchaeus View Post
    I’m not sure what bugs you are referring to. As I said before resistance to magic allows advantage on a saving throw. The RESIST keyword is used to half damage;
    As carefully explained in my earlier post, per the 5e SRD, RESIST:magic should be conferring advantage (and community indications are that VULN:magic should be conferring disadvantage) on the saving throws for creatures that have those tags whenever magic is used against them.

    Therefore, checking the "magic" radio button in the spell setup to, logically, indicate that it is magic (and not some other form of attack, etc.) and hitting the cast should activate either advantage (or disadvantage) on the automatic save that occurs in conjunction with casting a spell. And, that effect is absolutely not happening. Further, I have tested this problem numerous times with the same 100% reproducible result each time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zacchaeus View Post
    In summary you are trying to use the resistance and immune effects incorrectly with magic; hence the results you are seeing.
    Nope. As above, the code does not implement the 5e SRD correctly and should likely add the opposite effect for vulnerability. Please read the full content of my earlier post (or this one) carefully and check the 5e SRD (see references below). These issues are FG 5E ruleset implementation gaps/bugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by REFERENCE: 5E Monster Manual -- Pseudodragon, Solar, Devils, etc.
    "Magic Resistance. The pseudodragon has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects."
    Note that I do not specifically see any creatures in the MM with "Magic Vulnerability" listed in their stat blocks, but, as above, that concept does exist in various places in the 5e community/homebrew space, where the intended mechanic is obviously to offer disadvantage on saves vs. magic, as described above.

    So...I hope that whoever is responsible for this code will make the appropriate changes so that saves work as expected when the "magic" radio button is checked. Thanks for reading!
    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

  10. #20
    damned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,529
    Blog Entries
    1
    The only change I can see to incorporeal in the last year in the 5E code was the removal of the token_cond_incorporeal.png icon
    Serious question - are you 100% sure you spelt it correctly every time... I know I dont.

    Im not sure why you think Magic Resist is not working?
    I put a Gold Dragon Wyrmling and a Pseudodragon in the CT and threw a Fireball and an Ice Storm at them and the Pseudodrgaon got advantage on every save and took hlaf damage on every save and the dragon took normal damage from the ice storm and none from the fireball.

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

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