!apply-change --bar|3 --damage|[[3d6]]Half damage if they saved, denoted by a red status marker:
!apply-change {{
--bar|3
--damage|[[6d6]]
--mod[status:red]|*.5
}}Using a tag, if they creatures with brown mark are resistant to fire:!apply-change {{
--bar|3
--damage[fire]|[[6d6]]
--mod[tag:fire,status:brown]|*.5
}}Resistant and saved:!apply-change {{
--bar|3
--damage[fire]|[[6d6]]
--mod[tag:brown,status:brown]|*.5
--mod[status:red]|*.5
}}How about more than one damage type:!apply-change {{
--bar|3
--damage[acid]|[[2d4]]
--damage[fire]|[[6d6]]
--mod[tag:brown,status:brown]|*.5
--mod[status:red]|*.5
}}And maybe a green status demarks immunity to acid:!apply-change {{
--bar|3
--damage[acid]|[[2d4]]
--damage[fire]|[[6d6]]
--mod[tag:brown,status:brown]|*.5
--mod[status:red]|*.5
--mod[status:green]|=0
}}And possibly the half damage save doesn't apply to acid:!apply-change {{
--bar|3
--damage[acid]|[[2d4]]
--damage[fire]|[[6d6]]
--mod[tag:brown,status:brown]|*.5
--mod[!tag:acid,status:red]|*.5
--mod[status:green]|=0
}}For completeness, maybe you count HP to 2 decimal places:!apply-change {{
--bar|3
--damage[acid]|[[2d4]]
--damage[fire]|[[6d6]]
--mod[tag:brown,status:brown]|*[2].5
--mod[!tag:acid,status:red]|*[2].5
--mod[status:green]|=0
}}Or possibly on a save, the acid damage heals:!apply-change {{
--bar|3
--damage[acid]|[[2d4]]
--damage[fire]|[[6d6]]
--mod[tag:brown,status:brown]|*[2].5
--mod[!tag:acid,status:red]|*[2].5
--mod[status:green,!status:red]|=0
--mod[status:red,status:red]|*-1
}}Rules are evaluated in order, and all rules are evaluated, so you might find yourself using ! and the parts from prior rules to get an or sort of case.//ApplyChange
on('ready',function(){
'use strict';
var modifiers = {
places: function(places){ return (number)=>parseFloat((parseInt(number,10)||0).toFixed(places)); },
'*': function(amount){ return (number)=>number*amount;},
'+': function(amount){ return (number)=>number+amount;},
'/': function(amount){ return (number)=>number/amount;},
'-': function(amount){ return (number)=>number/amount;},
'=': function(amount){ return (number)=>amount;},
'%': function(amount){ return (number)=>number%amount;}
},
matchers = {
'status': function(status){
return (token,amount,context)=>{
let sm=_.reduce(
token.get('statusmarkers').split(/,/),
(m,o)=>{let p=o.split(/@/); m[p[0]]=(p[1]||0); return m; },
{}
);
return _.has(sm,status);
};
},
'negate': function(fn){ return (token,amount,context)=>!fn(context,token); },
'tag': function(tag){ return (token,amount,context)=>_.contains(amount.tags,tag); }
},
buildMatcher = function(params){
return (function(matchers){
return function(token,amount,context){
return !_.find(matchers,(m)=>!m(token,amount,context));
};
}(_.chain(params)
.reduce((m,o)=>{
let p=_.rest(o.match(/^(!)?([^:]*):(.*)$/));
p[0]=!!p[0];
m.push({
negate: p[0],
type: p[1],
value: p[2]
});
return m;
}, [])
.map((o)=>{
if('negate'===o.type || !_.has(matchers,o.type)){
return _.constant(true);
}
return (o.negate ?
matchers.negate(matchers[o.type](o.value)) :
matchers[o.type](o.value) );
})
.value()));
},
buildModifier = function(op,amount,places){
return (_.isUndefined(places) ?
modifiers[op](amount) :
_.compose(modifiers.places(amount) , modifiers[op](amount)) );
};
on('chat:message',function(msg){
if('api' === msg.type && msg.content.match(/^!apply-change/) && playerIsGM(msg.playerid) ){
if(_.has(msg,'inlinerolls')){
msg.content = _.chain(msg.inlinerolls)
.reduce(function(m,v,k){
var ti=_.reduce(v.results.rolls,function(m2,v2){
if(_.has(v2,'table')){
m2.push(_.reduce(v2.results,function(m3,v3){
m3.push(v3.tableItem.name);
return m3;
},[]).join(', '));
}
return m2;
},[]).join(', ');
m['$[['+k+']]']= (ti.length && ti) || v.results.total || 0;
return m;
},{})
.reduce(function(m,v,k){
return m.replace(k,v);
},msg.content)
.value();
}
let args = _.rest(msg.content
.replace(/<br\/>\n/g, ' ')
.replace(/(\{\{(.*?)\}\})/g," $2 ")
.split(/\s+--/)),
ids = _.pluck(msg.selected,'_id'),
context = {
bar: 1,
amount: [],
mods: []
};
// !apply-change --bar|1 --amount|-[[xdy]] --mod[status:red,!status:green,tag:fire]|*.5 --ids @{target|token_id}
// !apply-change --bar|1 --damage|[[xdy]] --mod[status:green]|*.5 --ids @{target|token_id}
_.map(args,function(arg){
let cmds=((arg.match(/([^\s]+[\|#]'[^']+'|[^\s]+[\|#]"[^"]+"|[^\s]+)/)||[])[0]||'').split(/[\|#]/),
mult=1,
cmdparts=cmds.shift().match(/^([^\[]*)(?:\[([^\]]*)\])?$/),
cmd=cmdparts[1],
params=((cmdparts[2]||'').length ? cmdparts[2].trim.split(/\s*,\s*/) : []);
switch(cmd){
case 'ids':
ids=_.union(_.rest(arg.split(/\s+/)),ids);
break;
case 'bar':
context.bar = (parseInt(cmds[0])||1);
break;
case 'damage':
mult=-1;
/* falls through */
case 'amount':
context.amount.push({
amount: mult*parseInt(cmds[0]||0),
tags: params
});
mult=1;
break;
case 'mod':
let parts=cmds[0].match(/^([\*\+\-\/=%](?:\[\d\])?)?([\d\.]*)/),
amount=parseFloat(parts[2]),
opParts=parts[1].match(/^(.)(?:\[(\d*)\])?$/),
op=opParts[1],
places=opParts[2]||0;
context.mods.push({
matcher: buildMatcher(params),
modifier: buildModifier(op,amount,places)
});
break;
}
});
// get tokens
if(ids.length){
_.chain(ids)
.uniq()
.map(function(t){
return getObj('graphic',t);
})
.reject(_.isUndefined)
.each(function(token) {
let bar=`bar${context.bar}_value`,
change=0;
_.map(context.amount, (amount)=>{
let value=amount.amount;
if(context.mods.length){
_.each(context.mods,(mod)=>{
if(mod.matcher(token,amount,context)){
value=mod.modifier(value);
}
});
}
change+=value;
});
token.set(bar,parseFloat(token.get(bar))+change);
});
}
}
});
});
!apply-change {{ --bar|1 --damage[success:[[(1d20+5)>@{target|foe|defense)]] ]|[[3d6]] --mod[tag:success:1]|=0 }}
The Aaron said:
Here's how you might use tags to adjust the damage based on a formula:!apply-change {{ --bar|1 --damage[success:[[(1d20+5)>@{target|foe|defense)]] ]|[[3d6]] --mod[tag:success:1]|=0 }}
!apply-change {{
--bar|1
--damage|[[3d6]]
--mod{!formula:[[(1d20+5)>@{target|foe|defense}]]}|=0
--ignore-selected
--ids @{target|foe|token_id}
}}and the alternate syntax applied to tags:!apply-change {{
--bar|1
--damage{chance[[1d4]]}|10
--mod[tag:chance1]|*3
--mod[tag:chance2]|/2
}}
And maybe call it...Silvyre said:
I'm certain to use this script!
Now for a question that you're probably anticipating: should we get our hopes up for an --attribute|attribute_name argument as an alternative to --bar? :D
Can you give some examples of how you see this working, I'm not sure I completely get what you're talking about.Gary W. said:
Is it possible to integrate this with the Shaped Sheet? So that the numbers pull directly from the character sheet?
And is it possible to include an override button in case the target does something like shield or cutting words?Definitely possible. Reporting was the next thing I was going to add. I'll move this over to a proper script format first, in the repo and with help and configs and such.
Kiyomi N. said:
Seriously Aaron. This is incredible. You've really outdone yourself so far :)
Maybe. I've not played with that, it kind of depends on how we would get the damage into the script. I'll have to experiment.Gary W. said:
The more the script works without the user seeing it the better. Once reason I am such a fan of the Shaped Sheet is that it will create macros for every weapon and trait on the character sheet. The ideal solution would resolve individual melee and spell attacks as well as dealing with area of effect spells. One individual attack rolls the shaped sheet will make a roll to hit and determine damage. Could we append your script to the macro so that those to hit and damage rolls and deduct them from the token hit points.
Area of effect spells are probably going to be more tricky. I have recently started using Jakob's group check script- which makes a save or ability check for every token selected. I then use token mod to deduct the damage. Ideally the scrip would have each token roll a save using the shaped sheet modifiers (like Jakobs), and apply the damage to the token based on the result of the save.Checking against a particular individual formula is something I'd like to add, so that part should be possible. Selecting who to target might be harder as you'd either have to have selected them before hitting the macro (and that might cause other problems) or you'd need to pass a sufficient number of @{target|T#|token_id} arguments to --ids. Probably outputting an API Command Button to click once they've been selected would be easier on all sides.
Perhaps somewhere down the line a script could account for heavy armor mastery, the shield spell cast as a reaction, cutting words as a reaction etc, but in the meantime the script would need some way of being rolled back on individual tokens that have these features and use them.Probably these could be handled by providing some sort of adjustment interface via the chat. Maybe have a collection of possible adjustments to apply and a button to negate each rule that was applied (and maybe to force ones that weren't).
Does this make sense? I wish I could speak programmers lingo but I don't :)No worries. Most people don't speak programmer lingo, so I'm like a left handed fencer--used to it more than you are!
As for resistances... Is there any way to, instead of checking for a status icon, checking the value of an attribute to determine whether or not it has one? For example, right now I just have a box where players right in what elements they are weak, resistant or immune to but I doubt it can check a text box for specific text so maybe if I created separate attributes for each element and weak/resist and if the box is checked, the value becomes 1 and if the script looks for that... Just a thought.Yeah, I'd like to add that. It actually wouldn't be hard to pull them all from a text box provided they are in a sensible format (comma delimited, all on individual lines, etc). The biggest thing would be to have each of the individual types of qualities separated: weak in one box, resistant in another, immune in a third, etc.
Something like is what I had in mind for that (--ignore-selected to not adjust the selected user, --ids to specify who to affect with @{target}, etc) :Kiyomi N. said:
So for people who use macros that use target for the target and selected for the user... Would that be a simple adjustment?
!apply-change {{
--bar|1
--damage|[[3d6]]
--mod{!formula:[[(1d20+5)>@{target|foe|defense}]]}|=0
--ignore-selected
--ids @{target|foe|token_id}
}}
Yeah, I'd like to add that. It actually wouldn't be hard to pull them all from a text box provided they are in a sensible format (comma delimited, all on individual lines, etc). The biggest thing would be to have each of the individual types of qualities separated: weak in one box, resistant in another, immune in a third, etc.
One thing I have found really useful is the ability to "add" to the sheets macros by through the freeform section. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yPcIZ_bIc3JlnW...The Aaron said:
Maybe. I've not played with that, it kind of depends on how we would get the damage into the script. I'll have to experiment.Gary W. said:
The more the script works without the user seeing it the better. Once reason I am such a fan of the Shaped Sheet is that it will create macros for every weapon and trait on the character sheet. The ideal solution would resolve individual melee and spell attacks as well as dealing with area of effect spells. One individual attack rolls the shaped sheet will make a roll to hit and determine damage. Could we append your script to the macro so that those to hit and damage rolls and deduct them from the token hit points.
The Aaron said:I envision this working the same way your group initiative operates- using the mouse to draw a big box around the tokens being selected.Gary W. said:Checking against a particular individual formula is something I'd like to add, so that part should be possible. Selecting who to target might be harder as you'd either have to have selected them before hitting the macro (and that might cause other problems) or you'd need to pass a sufficient number of @{target|T#|token_id} arguments to --ids. Probably outputting an API Command Button to click once they've been selected would be easier on all sides.
Area of effect spells are probably going to be more tricky. I have recently started using Jakob's group check script- which makes a save or ability check for every token selected. I then use token mod to deduct the damage. Ideally the scrip would have each token roll a save using the shaped sheet modifiers (like Jakobs), and apply the damage to the token based on the result of the save.
Kiyomi N. said:
Yes this is how my sheet is designed. That would be wonderful! Also the targeting seems like it would work just fine. My thoughts on AOE... Is there any way to affect all squares within so many squares of the user, or within so many of the target token? Failing that, is there a way to target multiple enemies are once using 'target' rather than 'selected'?
!apply-change {{
--bar|1
--damage|[[3d6]]
--ignore-selected
--ids @{target|foe1|token_id} @{target|foe2|token_id} @{target|foe3|token_id} @{target|foe4|token_id}
}}Where that gets complicated is with the --mod argument. Since the formula is (currently) calculated on the client side, there isn't a way to individually consider each target's defense. I'll try to find a good way to handle that. I'd like to support as many scenarios as possible:
Right, the complicated part comes when you consider when you're doing that selection, and who is doing it. Players can't select tokens they don't control, for example.Gary W. said:
I envision this working the same way your group initiative operates- using the mouse to draw a big box around the tokens being selected.
The Aaron said:
Kiyomi N. said:
Yes this is how my sheet is designed. That would be wonderful! Also the targeting seems like it would work just fine. My thoughts on AOE... Is there any way to affect all squares within so many squares of the user, or within so many of the target token? Failing that, is there a way to target multiple enemies are once using 'target' rather than 'selected'?
Specifying multiple targets can be done by adding multiple target arguments for --ids:!apply-change {{ --bar|1 --damage|[[3d6]] --ignore-selected --ids @{target|foe1|token_id} @{target|foe2|token_id} @{target|foe3|token_id} @{target|foe4|token_id} }}Where that gets complicated is with the --mod argument. Since the formula is (currently) calculated on the client side, there isn't a way to individually consider each target's defense. I'll try to find a good way to handle that. I'd like to support as many scenarios as possible:Thoughts?
- single rolled number vs. target attribute
- single rolled number vs. target rolled number
- individually rolled number vs target attribute
- individually rolled number vs target rolled number
Jakob said:
Wow, this is becoming a major undertaking. Looking quite nice so far. I was thinking about some kind of script intercommunication with GroupCheck, but that may be hard to implement, as GroupCheck doesn't know the results of the roll, only the formula.
The Aaron said:
Probably we can work something out for communication between the scripts, or GroupCheck could output some buttons, or the functionality might get subsumed with the addition of attributes to the mod rules.
The Aaron said:
Can you post your macro?
!extend `(1d20+@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_total-attack})[tohit]` `(${tohit}>@{target|AC})[hit]` `(${toconf}==20 | ${toconf}>@{target|AC})[cconf]` `(${dieroll} ==1 | ${tohit}<=@{target|AC})[miss]` `(${dieroll} ==20 | ${dieroll}>=@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_crit-target})[crit]` `(${miss} ? "Miss" : "Hit")[horm]` `(@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_damage-dice-num}d@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_damage-die})[dmg]` `(${dmg}*@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_crit-multiplier}))[critdmg]` `(${dmg}*0)[missdmg]` `(${hit} & ${crit} & ${cconf} ? ${critdmg} : ${damage})[finaldmg]` `(${hit} & ${crit} & ${cconf} ? "Crit" : ${horm})[result]` `(1d20+@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_total-attack}+@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_crit_confirm})[toconf]` `(${hit} ? ${dmg} : ${missdmg})[damage]` &{template:pf_attack} {{character_name=@{selected|token_name}}} {{subtitle= attacks @{target|token_name} with @{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_name}}} {{D20 Roll= `(${tohit}-@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_total-attack})[dieroll]` Hitting AC: `(${tohit})`}} {{Crit D20 Roll= `(${toconf}-(@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_total-attack}+@{selected|repeating_weapon_$0_crit_confirm}))` To Confirm: `(${toconf})`}} {{Result= `(${result})`}} {{Damage= `(${finaldmg})`}}!apply-change--bar|1 --damage|`(${finaldmg})` --ignore-selected --ids @{target|foe1|token_id} it doesn't subtract the damage from the token's hp bar but if i change it to !apply-change--bar|1 --damage|6 --ignore-selected --ids @{target|foe1|token_id} while still inside the macro it will take 6 hp away
Silvyre said:so thats why it won't work in conjunction with ApplyChange, if The Aaron can maybe add the syntax in we can combine/make them work together??
This won't work because `(${finaldmg})` is not recognized by the ApplyChange script as meaningful syntax.
The Aaron said:
That `(${finaldmg))` is only going to work inside !extend commands. Even if I added something to accept that syntax, nothing on my end would be filling finaldmg with the same thing as in the !extend call.
B14d3r11 said:
Do you think the result would warrant the work? Cause I noticed a lot of people want a automated attack macro like the one I've made with the added benefit of your scripts.
