|
Just a heads up that I am still going through all the feats and rewriting short descriptions to be more exact (yet hopefully still short enough). In many cases the short descriptions are missing entirely so I add them. This is slow work but I expect to finish it by the end of the month. BTW, is there a way to tell the builder that my party has enough Stones of Light to give initiative bonus to my character? If not, maybe there should be an item that gives the set bonus to character.
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
I just submitted the feats for which I updated short descriptions. I only touched feats that weren't added by this community since modders seem to write better descriptions than WotC. Also, feats added by WotC that had satisfactory short descriptions are omitted in this file. About 20% of feats lacked short description entirely so I added them. In other cases the most common problems were lacking duration data, no mention of tier scaling, lacking modifier data (just how much does this feat modify this thing?), and sheer errors. With these modifications, selecting feats in CB should be faster, and more useful feat descriptions will be printed on character sheet. Hope you enjoy them!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
I'd like to hear from the powers that be, are they happy with my short feat descriptions, and will they be included in the "official" part-files? I guess I should point out that I included all the feats I modified in the file I sent, and only feats that I modified. I didn't touch any rules elements, only short descriptions (and fixed some typos in full descriptions).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
Tivaan posted:Ok everything from the email (Up to 8/23/2011) except the "updated flavor feat file" has been added and updated. Was something wrong with the feat file?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
Being the perfectionist I am, I'm thinking of polishing the short feat descriptions a little more. With respect to that, I'd like to know what you think about using abbreviations in them. The following abbreviations would shorten the descriptions in many cases but do you think it would be a good idea to use them? BA: basic attack CA: combat advantage MBA: melee basic attack OA: opportunity attack RBA: ranged basic attack EYNT: end of your next turn SYNT: start of your next turn EYNT and SYNT are a little awkward but those two phrases are very common in feat descriptions and I'd really like to shorten them somehow. Also, can it be assumed that people understand that things like "+1/+2/+3" refer to tiers without mentioning that explicitly?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:I've seen EoNT for End of Next turn (implying your next turn), and SoNT. It's not universal though, I think the Char Op board uses those a little bit. OK, I'll use those then. I presume the other abbreviations I suggested are widely used and understandable so I'll use them also. There's always the full description available if any confusion arises from abbreviations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:Do we have a guide line for what should and should not be displayed on the Character sheet (with respect to Class/Path/Destiny Features)? The short descriptions serve two purposes: they are printed on char sheet and they are visible in feat menu so you don't have to click the feat to see what it does. That's why I don't think it is good idea to suppress any of them. You can always delete chosen descriptions manually from the char sheet if desired.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
SabreCat posted:That makes sense for feats, but Drewjitsu was talking about features, not feats. I'm in agreement with D here--if the feature is fully represented elsewhere on the character sheet, I'd rather suppress it (as thoroughly as possible, not just removing the short desc) in the features list. Most of the games I'm in/running are at upper paragon tier, some of them with themes in the mix, and those feature lists get seriously cluttered with information you never reference in play. OK, that makes sense. In fact, once I have finished polishing the feat descriptions, I can tackle class and racial feature short descriptions next.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
SabreCat posted:The short text for Light Blade Expertise is misleading. It says "+1/2/3 (by tier) to attack vs. creature granting combat advantage, damage rolls"; this is backward. It's the attack bonus that's on all the time, and the +damage that only occurs when you have CA. "+1/2/3 (by tier) to damage vs. creature granting combat advantage, all attack rolls" maybe? Hmm, I only revised short feat descriptions for feats that were added by WotC (pre-Essentials), but maybe I should also do it for feats added by the community if there are errors there, too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
I submitted my new, more polished short feat descriptions with the aforementioned abbreviations included. I will next visit race and class features in the same manner, and remove references to "you gain power x" since they are useless on the char sheet, and the relevant power card is there. Unless people object to this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
Hmm, how does one prevent the printing of class/racial feature's name on character sheet? If I remove the short description, the trait's name is still printed. In fact, many paragon path features are already this way; WotC has not added any short descriptions for them and only the name is printed. But as mentioned, printing the name is redundant if the feature only grants a power that has its own power card.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
Greyhawk Fan posted:I am pretty sure we already removed tons of redundant grant x power features. Can there be a lot more? So what exactly do you remove to prevent it from being printed on character sheet? For example, if we want to remove mention of dragonborn's breath weapon from racial features, since it just says that you gain the power.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:Hopefully it doesn't over-write the feats we've fixed (like two-weapon defense). It may be possible that any updates done between my two short description revisions were over-written. Namely these: Updated 25-August-2011: Added Shielding Word reminder to Healing Word power card. Updated 25-August-2011: Updated Mounted Combat Feat Updated 27-August-2011: Updated Two-Weapon Defence Feat - now adds AC and REF to the character sheet. Would be worth checking out and redoing them if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
I noticed that cleric.part also contains feats Pacifist Healer and Beatific Healer, and they override the new short descriptions for them in feats.part. Is there a good reason why the same rules element can be found in different part files? I think a specific rules element should be included in only one part-file to prevent this kind of problem.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 05:10
|
|
|
There's new errata for Psionic Power: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updates. The changes are articulated here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdatePsP.pdf.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Examining feats.part, I noticed that some feats are in the file twice. For example, Divine Healer, Expanded Spellbook, and Beast Rider among others. I guess that these feats have been in feats.part before the new short descriptions were added, and when the new short descriptions were added, they became included second time. The latter instances seem to be the ones with the new short descriptions. Someone should probably eliminate the double instances by copying the new short description to the first instance of the feat and then deleting the second one. I can do this and submit the corrected file if it's ok to the "dudes".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:The dudes abide. Submitted the revised feats.part. I forgot to update version information at the beginning of the file, so dudes should do that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Question: If a feat is both in bug-fixes.part and feats.part, which one takes precedence while merging? There are many feats that appear in both files now. Which instance should we use? Is bug-fixes.part even necessary? Why aren't those elements in their respective part files to prevent double instances (so all bug fixed feats would be in feats.part, for example)?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 08:50
|
|
|
Greyhawk Fan posted:If you find more than one copy of an element the one that counts is the one from the file with the higher number. Having a feat in bug-fixes and one in feats shouldn't hurt anything but it will use the XML from the feat file. In most cases the uploader is probably going to check your submission against bugfixes (to make sure the fixes are included) and may delete it from bug-fixes when they add it to feats. They may not delete it as well. So basically, if I find the same feat in feats.part and bug-fixes.part, and there is a difference in XML, should I just copy the new short description from feats.part to the corresponding feat in bug-fixes.part and then delete the entry from feats.part? And I believe I have already rewritten all the feat descriptions now that I submitted the remaining Dark Sun feats yesterday  .
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
Mr Beens posted:Not sure I'm a big fan of the new "short" feat descriptions - in a lot of cases the whole feat text is now in the feat description Actually the point was to have the whole content of the feat in the short description, but still in a more compact form than in the actual description. I'd say that the average compression ratio was about 50%. I find it more important to not have to refer to a book or the program during play than to keep the feat descriptions minimally short and inaccurate, even misleading. Also, many feats lacked short description altogether, but all should have one now. If you have difficulty in fitting the descriptions in the usual space, just unlock panels and draw the feat box on blank page. You can create new blank pages from one of the menus. I am also willing to shorten the descriptions further by introducing more abbreviations like modifier -> mod. and adjacent -> adj. Would people like this? Sakri fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Sep 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Greyhawk Fan posted:While some of the short feat descriptions were really poor I don't understand the need to rewrite them all and making them huge. The long feat description is actually the one we should be concerned about for selecting feats. When you highlight a feat when you are choosing them it shows the full long description. As long as this is fully accurate to me that is good. I don't want to click through all the feats when making a character and reviewing feat options. I like it that the immediately visible short descriptions give me enough information about whether the feat is worth considering. Greyhawk Fan posted:You are supposed to have your books with you when you are playing. If you really have a complicated feat description then you can print the sucker out in the Compendium and throw it into your character folder. We don't like to haul all the dozens of books with us when we play, so it's much more useful if relevant feat information is on the char sheet. Even if it means printing extra page for it. Plus, we don't have access to Compendium, since DDI isn't worth the money anymore. Hasn't been since they stopped supporting LCB. But I guess we could have a separate part-file that contains all the feats in the game with the more accurate short descriptions, and the old short descriptions could be restored to the usual part files. People could then choose which ones to use. I can put together the compiled feat part with longer short descriptions if we go this way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
OK, since you probably want to revert back to the original short feat descriptions, I put together a part file containing all the feats with my longer short feat descriptions. I already sent it to you guys. I would really appreciate it if you could keep this file available on the first message for those who like to have the longer descriptions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
I noticed that Paladin class features ardent vow and virtue's touch are marked as racial traits in combined.dnd40.main. A bug?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Sakri posted:I noticed that Paladin class features ardent vow and virtue's touch are marked as racial traits in combined.dnd40.main. A bug? Did anyone do anything about this? Do these class features work correctly in the builder?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
Undrhil posted:I know that someone had volunteered to clean up the short-text for various feats for the character sheet. Can I just request that whenever short-text is made or updated that references to "damage rolls" not be shortened to "damage" in the short text? I know of at least one person who is saying that the Elemental Empowerment feat modifies Magic Missile damage because "the text just says damage" on the character sheet feat list. I actually revised all the short feat descriptions already a while back. I chose to use "damage" instead of "damage rolls" since some cuts and compromises had to be made to save space. The descriptions are somewhat lengthy as it is. I believe that in a vast majority of instances the feats refer to damage rolls when there is "damage" in short description so that should be your default assumption. The full description should be consulted when in doubt, and players should be reminded to read all their feats carefully when making characters. The short descriptions can't cover everything.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
Hi, Is there some reason why I can't find Book of Vile Darkness items? Also, I would like to request an item entry for Unseelie Agent theme's shadow-wrought weapon. Sakri fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Apr 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 19:52
|
|