[5e Shaped] Version 8+

I appreciate all the working you're putting into the sheet, Kryx! I don't know if this is the right place or if it's been brought up before, but I thought I'd give you a bit of subjective feedback. I very much preferred what the roll templates looked like before. They were a lot cleaner and didn't contain any unnecessary information. The roll results were also nice and large, and centred in the middle. Nothing fancy, just nice and clean.  In the new template everything ends up looking really cluttered, it's like every melee attack is short spell with the roll results in the middle. For example, you don't need to print that every greatsword attack is a melee weapon attack, it just makes it difficult to look at. All the numbers will also be in different places depending on what type of attack it is, or what type of damage it deals. Combined it all just ends up becoming difficult to read, at least at a glance. TL:DR: Change is bad :p

Roll template is changed as part of 9.1.0:

Ah, yes. That does look a lot nicer. I still prefer the previous look to be honest, but I'm having trouble coming up with a definitive reason as to why. Perhaps it'll just take some getting used to. The roll 2 option (which I use) definitely looks a lot nicer when the result is centred, though.

Edvin G. said: Ah, yes. That does look a lot nicer. I still prefer the previous look to be honest, but I'm having trouble coming up with a definitive reason as to why. Perhaps it'll just take some getting used to. The roll 2 option (which I use) definitely looks a lot nicer when the result is centred, though. Eh, Kryx? Eh? Centered is more betterer because less clutter around the 2 most important #s. :D

Hey my friend, any idea when you'll release the code for 9.1? I'm looking forward to testing out the parsing issues from NPC's with Legendary Actions, Regional Effects, etc.

TheWebCoder said: Eh, Kryx? Eh? Centered is more betterer because less clutter around the 2 most important #s. :D One voice does not create consensus. People don't like change - especially D&D players. You can see that in every change here or on other sites like facebook for example. Jyro X said: Hey my friend, any idea when you'll release the code for 9.1? I'm looking forward to testing out the parsing issues from NPC's with Legendary Actions, Regional Effects, etc. Undetermined. I'm working on it currently, but not until it's more stable. You can help that along by testing the sheet on the test campaign currently. Regional effects were fixed by roll20 and should be working as of 9.0.1 for MM creatures.

Based on the conversation that Kinzaru and I have had at  #198: Conversion to 9.0.1 mangles many SRD imported Actions/Attacks I'm unsure if 7.12.x -> 9.0.0 monsters were ever tested. I looked back at the issue logs and I'm now unsure if anyone actually tested 7.12.x SRD monsters -> 9.0.0 upgrade. Several things were tested from 7.12.x, but I can't be sure that monsters were. I have cleared out all of the other bugs and I will investigate tomorrow. If it's an easy fix I can put it out as 9.0.2 early next week. I'll follow up soon. If none were tested then this is a perfect example of why a LTS structure would not work. If none were tested then it seems the community that uses the roll20 version of the sheet were not involved in testing a large portion of the sheet (monsters).

Kryx said: snip I looked back at the issue logs and I'm now unsure if anyone actually tested 7.12.x SRD monsters -> 9.0.0 upgrade. Snip Well I did some testing of 7.12.2 to 9.0.1 of creatures originally from SRD and VG1 and found only a couple of cosmetic issues which did not occur in your test campaign - only in mine.  I did note some of the issues that were later fixed, like duplicate weapons, at early points in the testing.  Not extensive or exhaustive testing though.

Jim W. said: Well I did some testing of 7.12.2 to 9.0.1 of creatures originally from SRD and VG1 and found only a couple of cosmetic issues which did not occur in your test campaign - only in mine.  I did note some of the issues that were later fixed, like duplicate weapons, at early points in the testing.  Not extensive or exhaustive testing though. I thought we did some, but I couldn't verify it in the issues. The monsters that aren't upgrading aren't complex so it would be hard to miss. I'll look into it tomorrow.

Kryx said: Regional effects were fixed by roll20 and should be working as of 9.0.1 for MM creatures. Odd. I'm still having the same issue. I'll try it in a completely blank game and see if maybe it's just a weird database issue. It works when converting from a pre-existing journal entry, but drag/drop functionality still presents the same problem.

Now that I'm forced to pick a Die from the dropdown, how should I handle Great Weapon Fighting?

Kryx said: Rob A. said: I'm finding some of my monsters have their attacks messed up with the conversion to 9.0.1. For example, the zombies tied to a necromancer (and thus getting his Proficiency Bonus to damage) had their slam attacks turned into "melee spell attacks" keyed off of Wisdom instead of Strength and the damage bonus changed from +3 to +6. If you're having specific monsters not parse correctly please provide a reproduction path on Bitbucket. I do not know what you mean by "zombies tied to a necromancer" - that is not in their monster manual statblock. Rob A. said: Likewise a bugbear got all his melee and ranged attacks turned into melee spell attacks. (I can fix his longbow, but his flail keeps insisting it's a melee spell attack, even though it's correctly keyed to Strength now and it shows "melee weapon attack" when I switch the attack into edit mode.) A bugbear's attacks are weapon attacks when I drag it from SRD. Did you change the wording? That's the only cause I can thinkin of that would impact the parse. Zombies tied to a necromancer meaning they get the necromancer's level added to their HP and his proficiency bonus added to their damage. In other words, the zombies were pulled from the SRD and then had custom changes made to their HP and Damage totals. The Bugbear was also customized after being dragged into a sheet from the SRD. In both cases their attacks were converted into "Melee Spell Attacks". I saw the same thing happen with several other customized monsters. The weird thing is that during the conversion process everything seems to work normally first (you see all the text for the attacks get converted to the new format) and then once that finishes the sheet blinks again and the attacks all get turned into "melee spell attacks" as if it's going through a second conversion process. ETA: My PCs aren't converting properly either. Our rogue, for whatever reason, had the entire list of black dragon traits listed as part of the text of her rapier attack. I had to delete and re-add the weapon to get rid of them. And her shortbow got changed to a melee spell attack and had the entire text of the ammunition property listed as part of the attack. Our ranger also had his longbow and rapier both changed to "melee spell attacks". The longbow briefly had the full text of the ammunition property as part of the attack text, but that eventually went away during the conversion process. In all cases I'm waiting another 10-20 seconds after the orbs start spinning normally. I also just opened up the sheet for the barbarian's warhorse and despite waiting until well after the gif was spinning normally, the hoof attack was changed to a melee spell attack doing 0d0 untyped damage.

Ryan said: Now that I'm forced to pick a Die from the dropdown, how should I handle Great Weapon Fighting? This was addressed earlier. Wait for update or do the workaround someone posted several posts up.

Kryx said: Pakki said: I looked through to see if anyone else had this issue and I'm not sure if anyone did, but it seems that when upgrading to the new sheets, if the NPC text was not written in freetext (i.e, you wrote it only &nbsp;in display text rather than freetext), then the description goes completely blank. I've had to go and rollback a campaign to salvage some of my homebrew npcs that have lost trait descriptors for this reason. This was fixed during the bug finding process. See&nbsp; <a href="https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5eshaped/issues/111/" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5eshaped/issues/111/</a>... It first upgrades the freetext for all sections. For traits it then checks if display_text exists. If display_text exists and content doesn't (if no freetext existed in old versions) then content is set to display_text. If content exists than display_text is added on with a line break. Allow me to begin with an apology: I've read through the bitbucket thread posted, but don't understand a lot of what it references. However, I have the same issue as Pakki, here. (In fact, one of my sheets is updating from a version pre-6.11, apparently.) Anyway, in regards to this sheet: it was the model for a custom faction's unique feats/abilities (built as a PC sheet). Now that it is updating, all the text fields (which included descriptions of those abilities) have vanished. I've tried clicking on the abilities in the "Traits and Features" section, but the chat output is blank. I've tried to find somewhere to show extra information, but even clicking the "Emote/Freetext/Freeform" options under the Gear icon didn't fix it. It should be noted that all this information was written in the main text box, not the "Extras" or "Freetext" field. Additionally, it should be noted that I have let the update run for about 10 minutes prior to posting this comment. So, is there any way for me to see that information again? Or is it lost? Please note, Kryx, this post is not an angry one. I'm just confused by what I've read and am not sure how to apply the solution that has been mentioned.

What's odd to me is all these attacks (both PC and NPC) getting set to "Melee Spell Attack" but there doesn't seem to be a way to intentionally set something as a Melee Spell Attack (or Ranged Spell Attack, for that matter) in those fields.

Ryan said: Now that I'm forced to pick a Die from the dropdown, how should I handle Great Weapon Fighting? Set the die to d0 and move all of the damage into the bonus field, i.e. 2d6ro&lt;2+1. The only limitation of this hack I've found is crits don't work, so you have to click it again to roll damage on a crit. Kryx has fixed it properly in version 9.1.0, which he'll release when it's ready.

My work around is overwritting the fields in the freeform so something like {{attack_damage_crit=[[2d6ro&lt;2[critical damage]]]}} {{attack_damage=[[2d6ro&lt;2[damage] + 5[str]]]}} in the freeform section. This works for crit. just make the formula add what is needed.

Rob A. said: Zombies tied to a necromancer.. The Bugbear was also customized.. My PCs aren't converting properly either warhorse ... the hoof attack was changed to a melee spell attack doing 0d0 untyped damage I cannot debug a problem that I cannot see. If this case will effect other upgrades then please open an issue on my issue tracker. If not then you'll need to manually adjust them. Posting on this thread is akin to venting. Solutions come from bug reports that can then be fixed.

Aelar G. said: Now that it is updating, all the text fields (which included descriptions of those abilities) have vanished. I've tried clicking on the abilities in the "Traits and Features" section, but the chat output is blank. I've tried to find somewhere to show extra information, but even clicking the "Emote/Freetext/Freeform" options under the Gear icon didn't fix it. It should be noted that all this information was written in the main text box, not the "Extras" or "Freetext" field. It's unclear to me which field you entered the content into. Was it "display_text"? If the display text upgrade has failed then the data is still sitting there in that field, it just isn't shown by the sheet. Try outputting it to the chat: /w gm @{NAME|repeating_trait_ID_display_text} or /w gm @{NAME|repeating_trait_ID_freetext} or /w gm @{NAME|repeating_trait_ID_content} The documentation has resources to get an id. You can use $0, $1, etc or find the actual ID in the browser dev tools. That should allow you to find the lost text. Please let me know if otherwise. If it doesn't work you can send me an invite and I can possibly retrieve it.

I submitted an issue to the issue tracker (with reproduction steps) concerning NPCs that aren't from the SRD breaking (as priorl stated) Though realized after posting I probably should've logged in to keep track of it lol So right now, it's submitted as Anon. If you need further information and I forget to follow up on the issue, feel free to send me a PM if the issue isn't merged with the other one.

Rob A. said: The Bugbear was also customized after being dragged into a sheet from the SRD. In both cases their attacks were converted into "Melee Spell Attacks". I saw the same thing happen with several other customized monsters. The weird thing is that during the conversion process everything seems to work normally first (you see all the text for the attacks get converted to the new format) and then once that finishes the sheet blinks again and the attacks all get turned into "melee spell attacks" as if it's going through a second conversion process. ETA: My PCs aren't converting properly either. Our rogue, for whatever reason, had the entire list of black dragon traits listed as part of the text of her rapier attack. I had to delete and re-add the weapon to get rid of them. And her shortbow got changed to a melee spell attack and had the entire text of the ammunition property listed as part of the attack. Our ranger also had his longbow and rapier both changed to "melee spell attacks". The longbow briefly had the full text of the ammunition property as part of the attack text, but that eventually went away during the conversion process. In all cases I'm waiting another 10-20 seconds after the orbs start spinning normally. I also just opened up the sheet for the barbarian's warhorse and despite waiting until well after the gif was spinning normally, the hoof attack was changed to a melee spell attack doing 0d0 untyped damage. Check out this issue tracker. &nbsp;Kryx managed to track down this problem (I'm a halper! yay!), but the conversion issues wont be resolved for a couple of weeks and sadly will not affect those sheets that have already been managed. &nbsp;I would hold off opening your NPC sheets for as long as possible. &nbsp;The 9.1.0 version should address the conversion problems...but we are SOL for those sheets that have already been converted and mangled. <a href="https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5eshaped/issues/198/conversion-to-901-mangles-many-srd" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5eshaped/issues/198/conversion-to-901-mangles-many-srd</a>

I wouldn't say I've fixed the issue. I've revamped upgrades which will hopefully help with the process, but I don't have a solution yet. Upgrades are generally a one time thing - which is why it's so important to have user involvement during the testing period. The best way to tackle these issues for the future is to test your sheets during any testing period. The good news is these problems primarily only affect monsters previously imported from the SRD so they are generally fairly simple to replace. The spell attack issue is simple enough to fix, though a pain for many creatures. I'll see how soon I can have 9.1.0 ready, but I'd estimate the current problems only affect about 10-20% of the users and they can be worked around with new monsters so we can't rush out a new version with potentially new bugs that affect everyone.

Kryx said: &nbsp;The best way to tackle these issues for the future is to test your sheets during any testing period. Is there any way for a Plus user to help with the testing process?

Matthew H. said: Is there any way for a Plus user to help with the testing process? Yes, I create many test sheets for new features. For conversion you can import your own sheets. It think some non-Pro users were able to do so, but maybe they'll chime in with how.

The newest update ruined over 200 character sheets, and NPC sheets worth of attacks, spells, and custom abilities for my players and myself. Over 24 hours of nonstop work have been put down the drain, so I hope the newest update can fix this. Our campaign has been postponed until your sheet is fixed. We love it, but the constant updates are breaking a lot of things we loved about the old sheets. I hope you can get it up and working as it used to soon. Or at least as intended to where it doesn't break what we have already put.

hello, not native english speaker, but love dnd much. New sheet is very much broken, attack are now spells? friend campaign ruined now, we now have no DnD until fix, i wish best luck and gods blessing to you, hope fix is soon. - best wish peirogi

This thread is not a place to vent about problems, it's about creating features and right now about solving problems. The problems are quite limited, are outlined, have workarounds, and are being addressed. If you're experiencing a problem not already outlined please help me identify it.

Can I ask another question about Version 9.0.1 and I apologize if this is listed in your known issues. I looked but did not see it. Perhaps it is not an issue but I wish understanding. In the traits section, when you have Other Damage checked, there is a little number before the damage die. In the case below, it is a 5. I think this is tied to the uses but I changed that and it did not change. Is it tied to the uses and is it supposed to update? Does it have any bearing on how this works? Also, I guess the way these repeating traits are set up now, I can not reference the damage die of one trait in another in order to set up Battle Master Maneuvers anymore. I guess I will have to think of another way to do this.

HLazar said: Can I ask another question about Version 9.0.1 and I apologize if this is listed in your known issues. I looked but did not see it. Perhaps it is not an issue but I wish understanding. In the traits section, when you have Other Damage checked, there is a little number before the damage die. In the case below, it is a 5. I think this is tied to the uses but I changed that and it did not change. Is it tied to the uses and is it supposed to update? Does it have any bearing on how this works? The average roll of a 1d8 is a 5 (if you look at NPCs, all damage rolls have the average damage of that attack followed by the die, so you have the choice of rolling or just taking the average to speed up an encounter) so it's just displaying the average damage that attack will make

HLazar said: Also I guess the way these repeating traits are set up now, I can not reference the damage die of one trait in another in order to set up Battle Master Maneuvers anymore. I guess I will have to think of another way to do this. Sure you can, @{NAME|repeating_trait_ID_other_damage_dice} @{NAME|repeating_trait_ID_other_damage_die}

techiecarer said: The average roll of a 1d8 is a 5 (if you look at NPCs, all damage rolls have the average damage of that attack followed by the die, so you have the choice of rolling or just taking the average to speed up an encounter) so it's just displaying the average damage that attack will make Kryx said: Sure you can, @{NAME|repeating_trait_ID_other_damage_dice} @{NAME|repeating_trait_ID_other_damage_die} Thanks, guys. I was starting to search through the html for these answers but, as always, you guys are quick on the responses.&nbsp; appreciate the info H

Can anyone verify if global spell bonus damage is not getting applied to melee spell attacks in 9.0.1? Also, it seems melee spell attacks must have a damage modifier or it defaults to Strength. I'm aware that's a known issue in weapons, but not sure if it's come up for spells?

TheWebCoder said: Can anyone verify if global spell bonus damage is not getting applied to melee spell attacks in 9.0.1? #187: Global Spellcasting Attack Modifier TheWebCoder said: Also, it seems melee spell attacks must have a damage modifier or it defaults to Strength. I'm aware that's a known issue in weapons, but not sure if it's come up for spells? It's an issue everywhere.

Two more little ones we've noticed: 1) Spells that were dragged from the SRD, but had any kind of custom content randomly have the attack checkmark enabled after the conversion. 2) Pasting into freetext sometimes instantly erases it. Entering it a second time seems to take. Apologies if they're already logged, and thank you as always for continuing to support the sheet!

9.0.1 bugs and 9.1.0 release: As far as I'm aware all of the bugs for 9.0.1 are fixed. (if not, please open new, detailed, issues) 9.1.0 has had significant changes and will need user testing before it can go public. Now we have 2 options: Test now Complete&nbsp; #166: Change all data saving to run silently which should improve the performance of the sheet by quite a bit After #166 I will need to extensively test again. I can give no great estimate on 166. It could be a few hours, it could be a week. Hopefully simple, but it's never easy to estimate. So, testers, which option would you prefer? Should I put in the work for #166 before releasing 9.1.0, or should I release it without that and then test again for silent updates? Thanks

TheWebCoder said: Two more little ones we've noticed: 1) Spells that were dragged from the SRD, but had any kind of custom content randomly have the attack checkmark enabled after the conversion. 2) Pasting into freetext sometimes instantly erases it. Entering it a second time seems to take. Apologies if they're already logged, and thank you as always for continuing to support the sheet! 1. Spells are parsed. I will need a detailed issue posted on the issue tracker. 2. Freetext is not parsed as of 9.x.x. Content is parsed. Do you mean Content? If content is parsed then certain parts are removed (the attack sequence). If you believe this is in error, again, please post a detailed issue to the issue tracker. This thread is not an issue tracker and anything posted here will quickly be lost.

I wanted to make sure they're not known issues before logging. For #2, literally pasting into "Freetext" for a spell instantly erases the pasted text about 50% of the time.

Good work as always. I was wondering if it's still possible to add emotes in the attacks/spell macros? I also am not a fan of the new roll card style. I much preferred the old centralized / big roll results, as it was much easier to read, specially the Roll2 option, which is what we use at our table. Just my 2 cents, as I realize you can please everyone.

Letícia said: Good work as always. I was wondering if it's still possible to add emotes in the attacks/spell macros? See the&nbsp; changelog , search for "emote".

Kryx said: 9.0.1 bugs and 9.1.0 release: As far as I'm aware all of the bugs for 9.0.1 are fixed. (if not, please open new, detailed, issues) 9.1.0 has had significant changes and will need user testing before it can go public. Now we have 2 options: Test now Complete&nbsp; #166: Change all data saving to run silently which should improve the performance of the sheet by quite a bit After #166 I will need to extensively test again. I can give no great estimate on 166. It could be a few hours, it could be a week. Hopefully simple, but it's never easy to estimate. So, testers, which option would you prefer? Should I put in the work for #166 before releasing 9.1.0, or should I release it without that and then test again for silent updates? Thanks I vote for #1. &nbsp;I can definitely deal with sub-par performance on the sheet for a while longer. &nbsp;The conversion issue from #198 should help a lot of users and we can focus the testing efforts after its release on #166. &nbsp;It should make the testing process smoother with less changes per release?

I also think you should push out 9.1.0 as soon as possible.

zerosius said: I also think you should push out 9.1.0 as soon as possible. The reason I ask is because option #1 is a lot more work for testers. So how the regular testers respond is really what matters. Would you want to heavily test now and then again in a week?

Personally if i got the time i'd be up for some testing, but i thought about pushing out 9.1.0 mostly because it seems to encompass fixes for some rather unfortunate bugs that snuck into 9.0.1. I think it would be worth to do more testing, if we could reduce the frustration for some people as soon as possible ;)

9.1.0 won't go out for at least a week, likely two, in either case. So I'm not sure the goal of putting it out ASAP can be actualized unless there is an unprecedented amount of testing done, at which point we're looking at a week. silent is a process change, not a functional one. So it wouldn't change any data, just change how a function calls another. The revamp I did to upgrades today was likely more work than this change. I'll explore it tomorrow and see how far I get. Others could already test the functional changes on the test campaign.

Alright, I can help with testing either way. 9.01 is working relatively care free for my two campaigns, so I can wait. I'd like to help testing too. Can I have the link to join the 'test game'.&nbsp;

I can unfortunately only help test properly during weekends, as that's when we have game nights.&nbsp; But I'd personally be fine with heavily testing 9.1.0 and then testing the silent saving thing afterwards.&nbsp; I want to help a little more with testing the sheet, as I have more time on my hands for that. By the way, we had a game yesterday with the new sheet. Other than the zombie upgrade that went a little wonky (which was fixed in a minute or two, including getting the book), everything worked just fine. We didn't have a single issue with the sheet while playing.

silent isn't that far off from what I can see and based on the testing bandwidth it really should fall inside the same testing period. I'm going to work on it today and see how far I get. Worst case I can easily remove it.

Kryx said: TheWebCoder said: Eh, Kryx? Eh? Centered is more betterer because less clutter around the 2 most important #s. :D One voice does not create consensus. People don't like change - especially D&D players. You can see that in every change here or on other sites like facebook for example. Since we are talking about voices here I'll join the wagon sayin this is not workin man. How does this: Look better easily readble then this: Also this just looks messy compared to the old style: Since u brought up the that there aren't enough voices. There is currently 3-4 people in the last few pages I could see voicing an opinion. And I know a few DMs aswell that isnt fond of the new template. Why change something when it looks great and works wonderfully?

Kryx said: Roll template is changed as part of 9.1.0: If we're going to discuss the roll template then use the latest. I didn't say "there aren't enough voices". I said one voice does not make consensus. This topic, and the topic of change, has been discussed many times on this thread and many threads in the past. I don't particularly feel like hashing it out when a new user who has not been involved in the discussion on this feature comes in, especially if they speak in a hostile tone as you have. Even more so if the user doesn't even bother to read the thread or even this page to ensure that they understand how it currently looks. Change happens in all kinds of software products. You can see the backlash happen every time youtube or facebook make a change. Inherently people don't like change. That doesn't mean what existed previously was a better option.

Kryx said: Kryx said: Roll template is changed as part of 9.1.0: If we're going to discuss the roll template then use the latest. I didn't say "there aren't enough voices". I said one voice does not make consensus. This topic, and the topic of change, has been discussed many times on this thread and many threads in the past. I don't particularly feel like hashing it out when a new user who has not been involved in the discussion on this feature comes in, especially if they speak in a hostile tone as you have. Even more so if the user doesn't even bother to read the thread or even this page to ensure that they understand how it currently looks. Change happens in all kinds of software products. You can see the backlash happen every time youtube or facebook make a change. Inherently people don't like change. That doesn't mean what existed previously was a better option. Just to be clear, there is no hostility :) This is also not the first time I've posted in one of the shaped threads :P I just wanted to let you know that If it was a matter of voices, there are more then just two.