I'd like to say that i prefered the previous sheet quite a bit. It looked more clean and worked perfectly for my games. I truly appreciate everything you do with these sheets but i thought i'd jump in and let my voice be heard
Are you talking about inline-editing? That change took 3 weeks and took a massive overhaul to the whole sheet with community contributed testing.Marek Z. said:
I'd like to say that i prefered the previous sheet quite a bit.
Nice! I used to to something like this manually, nice to see it as a feature.Kryx said:
Can you outline the use case where this is needed?Athleon said:
Also, since now they don't take up space unless toggled on, could we have more than 2 damage fields for attacks? Not a very common need but I'd like to see it implemented if it's not much trouble.
Kryx said:
Can you outline the use case where this is needed?Athleon said:
Also, since now they don't take up space unless toggled on, could we have more than 2 damage fields for attacks? Not a very common need but I'd like to see it implemented if it's not much trouble.
Thanks! I have put an immense amount of work into the sheet so it's great to see it appreciated.Marcloure said:
Kryx, you have done a paragon work with the Shaped sheet, adding even UA and houserule options.
Frist, editing spells is really slow. Changing the number or type of die, as an example, takes a whole minute.I have not experienced this. If your character has lots of spells (fields) then you'll encounter problems. Have you by chance added many spells (more than 30)? Perhaps try it on the test campaign where 9.1.0 is - that should improve performance, but I've never experienced this issue so I do not know the cause.
When I configure Thorn Whip to deal 1d6 piercing damage, it automatically change the damage to 1d6 + str_mod. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't see where if so.Can you test this on 9.1.0. If it occurs can you open an issue on my issue tracker with reproduction steps to have this occur on a new character sheet in 9.1.0? Thanks!
I skipped over this earlier. Please open a feature request on the issue tracker.Athleon said:
A suggestion for attacks/spells with 2 damage rolls: could you display each roll on a new line so that all the numbers are aligned? Something like this:
Hit:
[ROLL1] damage type plus
[ROLL2] damage type
Kryx said:
Booming Blade is a spell that is applied quite similarly to sneak attack, hunter's mark, colossus slayer, and other similar abilities. Attacks are meant to hold information on the attack, not rider effects that are not directly part of the attack.
I'd recommend setting up booming blade to be linked to the weapon - similar to how sneak attack is setup.
Kryx said:Did so! (hopefully correctly)Athleon said:I skipped over this earlier. Please open a feature request on the issue tracker.
A suggestion for attacks/spells with 2 damage rolls: could you display each roll on a new line so that all the numbers are aligned? Something like this:
Hit:
[ROLL1] damage type plus
[ROLL2] damage typeI skipped over this earlier. Please open a feature request on the issue tracker.
Kryx said:
Neither does sneak attack or divine smite or any other rider. But if they're linked like in the documentation then you can click it twice. Perhaps a nice feature to work on next would be the ability for features or things like spell repeats query for a crit or not.
Indeed the current workflow isn't the ideal. The problem is roll20 makes it practically impossible to reference a repeating section (features) from another repeating section (attacks). That is why #59: Make attachers work for skills. has made no visual progress. I tried for a few hours to make it so a repeating section can reference another repeating section visually on the sheet, but I'm unsure if it's even possible to hack in.Athleon said:
The more riders you add the more annoying this setup becomes, especially if it's practically on every attack.
Good idea.bgb said:
I don't see anything in that announcement to point me to a compatible version of the companion script. I understand that it may not be easy to coordinate those releases but it would be a big help to see some affirmative statement in the change log &/or release announcements such as "Shaped 9.1.0 is compatible with Companion Script x.y.z". The same, and probably easier statement on the companion script such as "Companion Script 5.1.0 is compatible with Shaped x.y.z" would be nice.
If those compatibility statements already exist, could someone point me to them because I've looked twice without seeing them.
doneKryx said:
sheet version is compatible. Can you open an issue on Lucian's issue tracker to make a note on his releases for which sheet version it isbgb said:
I don't see anything in that announcement to point me to a compatible version of the companion script. I understand that it
Great examples.Mike said:
I would highly recommend reconsidering this change or at least adding a toggle to list them out 1 per line. At very least they need to be comma seperated like spells if the previous recommendations are not options.
Examples: Old vs New
VS
VS
Marcloure said:
First, editing spells is really slow. Changing the number or type of die, as an example, takes a whole minute.
Indeed, I read this a while ago and again on the pathfinder sheet today.Kevin said:
@Marcloure - Check if you have Lastpass extension enabled. There have been ongoing issues with Lastpass and Roll20, but I know when I had this enabled and tried to edit traits, it was painfully slow. As soon as I disabled it, the slowness disappeared.
I second this. I really think the different features and attacks should be distinguished better in condensed form.Mike said:
As part of Issue 103, these lists are now much harder to read then they use to be. These lists were my #1 reason for switching my games to this sheet. The lists work great for spells, because often there are so spells. Spells are also comma separated and grouped by level which makes them easy to read.
Uncondensed The new lists for Traits and Weapons have way too much text to be easily used, and condensed they are so clustered that it's significantly harder to find what you need.
I would highly recommend reconsidering this change or at least adding a toggle to list them out 1 per line. At very least they need to be comma seperated like spells if the previous recommendations are not options.
Examples: Old vs New
VS
VS
Kryx said:
Great examples.
I think there are 2 options:#2 is probably hard to make work due to recharge and text being cut off.
- Do not make them inline
- Keep them inline but 2 per row
I'll wait for some more feedback from others before fiddling with the options.
The way it was is #1.techiecarer said:
I'd prefer option #1 personally for traits/features/etc. With weapons I liked the way it was in 9.0.0 but obviously it's your sheet.
Tim M. said:
I have to say that I think the previous Attacks interface felt much slicker and easier to use, the new is too bare and confusing :(
Inline-editing is the new design that is here to stay.Kryx said:
Are you talking about inline-editing? That change took 3 weeks and took a massive overhaul to the whole sheet with community contributed testing.
Your scripts are currently disabled due to an error that was detected. Please make appropriate changes to your scripts and click the "Save Script" button and we'll attempt to start running them again. More info...
For reference, the error message generated was: SyntaxError: Unexpected token :
{{[Menacing Attack](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_trait_$2_trait)}} {{[Disarming Attack](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_trait_$3_trait)}} {{[Goading Attack](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_trait_$4_trait)}} {{[Maneuvering Attack](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_trait_$5_trait)}} {{[Precision Attack](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_trait_$6_trait)}} {{[Maneuvering Attack](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_trait_$5_trait)}}
{{[Second Wind](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_class_$2_trait)}}but that doesn't seem to work.
{{[Second Wind](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_classfeature_$2_action)}}The documentation is out of date currently.
{{[Menacing Attack](~Character McCharacterface|repeating_trait_-KJOT7e-lEtteRsaTrXL_trait)}}The result is that I see Menacing Attack displayed correctly, followed immediately by roughly 50 or so uses of the first listed item (Parry) and ending with text that says "%{Character McCharacterface|repeating_trait_$0_trait}"
It's possible that the spells that convert to attacks previously had data inside the attacks section. Even if the attack is toggled off data in that section will trigger the attack toggle in 9.x.xThorsten B. said:
To those that have seen "all spells corrupted" after upgrade, I have and have not seen this as a user of the sheet. In one campaign, I have a character where every single spell somehow acquired an attack. Very vexing. But in another campaign, I cannot recreate.
Vanakoji said:
I have made the initial updates to the documentation for the fields and repeating sections as well as the roll template which took a lot longer than expect with the roll template changes. There is still more polish that needs to be looked at and some images/sections updated in the "useful macro" section but the most useful reference material should be there.
For the next update, traits going to multiple section should only need a small update since all the fields are the same the title section for that on how to reference an attribute or the macro could just be update to reflect the new sections and it should be good.
Kryx said:
The processing is complete when the spinning circles spin normally. If they jitter and are laggy the processing is still happening.