Problems / Bugs with BRP?

[superteddy57]

Pushed another hotfix. The location needs to match the location it's intended to cover to be made as an option. All is also a valid location. As well it needs to be equipped to be made available.

[peterb]

Pushed another hotfix. The location needs to match the location it's intended to cover to be made as an option. All is also a valid location. As well it needs to be equipped to be made available.

There's one problem with this approach. A lot of armor pieces are designed to cover more then one hit-location. Hauberks covers the abdomen and chest, for example. Greaves covers both legs and vambraces both arms. There are more examples. Of course you can set up the abdomen part of a hauberk as one item and the chest half as another, but that'll look odd in the inventory, IMO.

To test a possible fix I changed the function updateList() in record_char_armor.

I added local aLocations, aLocationsStats = StringManager.split(sLocations:lower(), ",;\n", true); on line 11
I changed line 15 (formerly line 14) to local bLocation = StringManager.contains(aLocations, sLocName:lower()) or (sLocations:lower() == "all");

After this change armor pieces covering multiple hit-locations where handled correctly.

Sorry for not providing the whole code but cloudflare stops me from posting longer posts.

[superteddy57]

Yes, it should split on a comma, semi-colon, or carriage return. I have intended to include this in the code and apologize for the inconvenience. It will be pushed with the next update for the ruleset.

[peterb]

Yes, it should split on a comma, semi-colon, or carriage return. I have intended to include this in the code and apologize for the inconvenience. It will be pushed with the next update for the ruleset.

Great! Thanks!

[superteddy57]

Pushed a hotfix with this ability. I had the code ready and didn't have it saved when I pushed with the last update. Should now include the ability for armor to cover multiple locations within the Locations field.

[devinlc]

Pushed another hotfix. The location needs to match the location it's intended to cover to be made as an option. All is also a valid location. As well it needs to be equipped to be made available.

Looks good. Working for me!

Regards,

Devin

[devinlc]

Superteddy57:

I just wanted to thank you for how responsive you've been! When I first plunked down my $30 to try out the BRP module I was disappointed that it basically didn't work. Your hard work has enabled me to get my money's worth for my upcoming campaign.

I have a request more than a bug fix. In the Big Gold Book BRP and the newest version, there is an option to roll initiative each round instead of acting purely by DEX Rank. I use that option. I don't need (or want) it automatically implemented, but it would be very nice if the DEX field in the combat tracker were available to be edited by the GM. That would allow me to implement the optional initiative system manually and allow me to change people's initiatives in case they hold their actions or do something (like draw a weapon) that delays their action. Even better would be a new column on the combat tracker called INIT that was, for each actor on the Combat Tracker, blank, editable, and the CT would be sorted by that field from highest to lowest.

The latter might be a bridge too far, but even if the DEX field could be made editable, that'd be an immense help to those of us using the optional initiative methods from BRP.

I also have some CT bugs that I will list in the next message.

Thanks,

Devin

[devinlc]

Playing around with the Combat Tracker (CT), I note the following:

1. Characters' power points do not reflect in the PP column of the CT. It should always show the current PP amount from the character sheet.

2. Even if using hit locations, some things in BRP only do damage to general hit points (like poison). There needs to be a way to reflect this. In thinking about what it probably the best and easiest way to do this, I could think of two ways:

A. Create a line on the Armor tab for a universal hit location called General that has no need for AP and the general hit point wound could be recorded there and then accumulated with hit location wounds to reduce maximum hit points on the Main tab.

B. Insert a fillable field on the Main tab between Max. Hit Points and Wounds called General Hit Point Wounds and have the Wounds field add the General Hit Point Wounds to the calculation it does now. For example, if a character is hit in the right leg for 2 points of damage, the Wounds field would currently show 2. If I entered in a 4 to the hypothetical Geneal Hit Point Wounds box, then the Wounds field would show 6. This new box would only be needed if using the Hit Locations option.

Thanks,

Devin

[devinlc]

On the Powers tab, "Psychic Ability" doesn't fit in the Type field. Can that be shortened to "Psychic" or the field widened to accommodate "Psychic Ability"? I don't use Super Powers, but I imagine that has the same issue.

Also, would like to see even more space for Powers (and less for character failings) given that a sorcerer can have INT spells in memory, which could mean as many as 18 spells. Magicians can have unlimited spells in their grimoire that can be cast on the fly. Right now, you get 9 powers before having to use the scroll bar. Doubling that would be great. Having an option to remove Character Failings entirely and extend powers all the way to the bottom of the Powers tab would be even better. Right now, Character Failings supports 32 entries currently; I can't imagine a superhero needing 32 entries for character failings. The BRP official character sheet provides 6 lines for failings. Skimming the character failing rules, the absolute maximum any superhero can have, in a superhuman power level campaign, is 25 points. In theory, that could mean 25 separate 1 point failings, but looking at the chart, that seems very unlikely. 12 failings would seem to be the upper limit of practicality in creating a character.

Regards,

Devin

[superteddy57]

Thank you, but there are quite a few things listed that may not be addressed as quickly as the bug reports. It is one of the oldest rulesets and is exapnded slowly. I have verified the PP isn't linking correctly and will attempt to make that available with the next update. The other requests will need time to investigate what needs to change and lower the amount of issues from those changes. Again, thank you for providing these insights and will make them available in my notes.