Generic Actions extension for Fantasy Grounds Unity 5E ruleset

[LordEntrails]

Thanks

I don't disagree with how you envision grapple for your table. And if that makes sense and fun for your table,I'm all for it.

My take, for my table, is I try not to read intentions or implications into the rules. We don't worry about it (and many of us play with a 3.5E DM who does, and we find it tedious and inconsistent because he changes his house rules all the time). So for me, since RAW doesn't say it does anything else, then for us grapple is something that only reduces the speed to 0.

Their are some NPCs (roper & choker maybe?) that do more than just grapple a creature with an attack. And in those cases (if I remember correctly) they specify that they do more than just apply the grappled condition. And we're good with that

[SilentRuin]

Thanks

I don't disagree with how you envision grapple for your table. And if that makes sense and fun for your table,I'm all for it.

My take, for my table, is I try not to read intentions or implications into the rules. We don't worry about it (and many of us play with a 3.5E DM who does, and we find it tedious and inconsistent because he changes his house rules all the time). So for me, since RAW doesn't say it does anything else, then for us grapple is something that only reduces the speed to 0.

Their are some NPCs (roper & choker maybe?) that do more than just grapple a creature with an attack. And in those cases (if I remember correctly) they specify that they do more than just apply the grappled condition. And we're good with that

Oh I'm all for not making things tedious and calculation heavy. Why I write these extensions when I get annoyed at figuring things out and why I like FGU

I love it when I have to figure out why all the dice were rolling only to find after doing a forensics of chat - that yes, FGU knew to break the concentration, add advantage, etc. and was correct.

I'm essentially a lazy DM and like all these things magically done for me. And at some point I'll probably not even forensics the chat when I see mysterious extra dice flying out of some roll, I'll just say...

It knows what its doing

Here's to reaching that point someday!

[4wire]

Have we been violently cordial to one another?

Thanks for the update my man.

[SilentRuin]

Have we been violently cordial to one another?

Thanks for the update my man.

Indeed

Let me know if it worked.

[4wire]

Indeed

Let me know if it worked.

Works indeed!

Now for the extra comment/suggestions:
- I try to avoid double negatives in my workday code, something like "Apply Grappled Effect" ON/OFF may have been better UX but that is subjective.
- The IF statement where you check for the Conditions (e.g. line 170 to 178 of manager_generic_actions.lua) would make a nice little function and avoid repeating that chunk of code for all "verify" logic.

Feel free to ignore me, I'm a Sr. Software Manager, can't help myself.

[SilentRuin]

Works indeed!

Now for the extra comment/suggestions:
- I try to avoid double negatives in my workday code, something like "Apply Grappled Effect" ON/OFF may have been better UX but that is subjective.
- The IF statement where you check for the Conditions (e.g. line 170 to 178 of manager_generic_actions.lua) would make a nice little function and avoid repeating that chunk of code for all "verify" logic.

Feel free to ignore me, I'm a Sr. Software Manager, can't help myself.

The option wording is subjective. But, when considered from my perspective, the one who has that OFF always and wants it considered an override to IGNORE the good and wholesome interpretation of those rules...

Well, you can see that it is correctly worded

If you note one of the comments near the top of all the .lua code I've written, it might answer that observation on my lack of breaking out common "functionality" and even templates!

A more detailed answer is quite simple, I had to - and continue to have to - change things and experiment with things to the point I'm willing to duplicate things to make it easier to read at a glance what is going on in that area of the code. Not as clean, for sure, but ever so much more convenient when any of these may change from "identical operations" to unique.

Feel free to ignore me, I'm recently retired from 35 years of software development, just learning LUA for the first time

[4wire]

Feel free to ignore me, I'm recently retired from 35 years of software development, just learning LUA for the first time

I knew it!

[SilentRuin]

I knew it!

After running a session with my group yesterday - I've come around to your way of thinking so changed the default to ON so that grappled will allow attacks by default. To many NPC's can specifically attack while grappling someone - so if I have a need to prevent any attacks while grappled I can just set the options to off for that situation.

You won!

[mattekure]

I enjoy the extension, but I am not clear on what all of the Options do. Specifically all fo the "Verify X" options. They all default to on. Can you make a post explaining what they are doing?

[SilentRuin]

I enjoy the extension, but I am not clear on what all of the Options do. Specifically all fo the "Verify X" options. They all default to on. Can you make a post explaining what they are doing?

Sure - that bottom of DMsG for that extension you'll see

There are also Generic Actions (GM) options for attacks and spell casting commands that prevent them from working if out of ammo (weapons only) or in a state (effect) that would not allow that action. If you set them to off and want the overrides to no longer be executed in code (done in onInit), then you will need to restart FGU (in case overriding these results handlers interfered with some other extension and you wanted them completely disabled not just off from the users perspective).

To translate,

Normally, you can attack anything. This annoyed me as I would always forget to track what state they were in and whether they actually could attack anything. So I added to every type of attack a check on their current effects to see if they could attack. Including a check on ammo.

So, If they are

Paralyzed
Stunned
Unconscious
Incapacitated
Petrified
(optionally grappled)

A message will pop up in chat telling them they can't attack because they have one of those effects.

I was worried that some people might not like this or it would interfere with other extensions and they would want to the ability to turn them off.

So for each type of attack (in the code, not really visible to you as the user) I gave an option to turn off the verification against those effects.

So basically in the code, you can turn off the overrides on the ruleset for each of those types of things (Attack, Cast, Cast Effect, Cast Save, Damage, Heal, Power Save). Each of those are actual pieces of code I'm overriding to make these checks. Probably should have just made one option that said "do verification on effects" or not. But at the time I was more worried about other extensions (I've now learned caring about other extensions is not really something extension writers do to much).

As far as the Ignore Grappled Effect - I had actually included grappled as one of those effects (with a big explanation of my reasoning earlier in this thread) where I eventually conceded to make an option so you did not have to have it.

Just today I changed it to default NOT to use grappled as one of those effect verification checks as I realized to many NPCs can have you grappled and still attack you. Hence, by default its no longer in the checks. Its worded really poorly because I wanted that effect as part of the checks as default - and I'm to lazy to make it any better now (working on other extension that's taken 4 weeks of hell but am closing in on it).