D&D 3.5 Sheet upgrade

Hi Joan, this is very strange, I can check but this is out of my scope: I can modify the layout of the sheet and how every field/buttons interact; but I cannot modify the token. However: could you tell me which attribute do you link to the token?    In the sheet are all fields correct?

Eradan said: Hey Hoyer It seems I can't drag&drop some of the weapons macros into the quick bar anymore, specifically: - the weaponXdamageroll button - the weaponXattack button - weaponXfullattack button Is there a way to fix it please? Hi Eradan, I must verify, because these are non a "buttons", but actions.

Sean T. said: OK, so while I appreciate that Hoyer is working to update the Diane-created 3.5 DnD character sheets; our group is in a position where we seem to have to check our sheets every time we login to see "what has happened to them now?" First, we lost ALL of our spell macros - these were replaced by the spell name & nothing else. Still is the case, several months later (our non-tech savvy players suffering the most). I'm sorry, it is strange that you have lost your macros, when I modified the section I kept all old attributes to avoid the loose of data, where did you lost you macros?  Sean T. said: Now, I go in to find that the token attributes that we set (hit points, armor class, etc) are gone. When I go in to replace them, I have to sort through a huge list of attributes. I don't know if this is related to a "Hoyer update", or something else. As I told to Joan, I cannot modify the token connection with the sheet attributes, and I didn't change the attributes of hit points, armor class.  Sean T. said: Is there a way to create a new character sheet that Hoyer can work on, and leave the original Diane sheet alone? Once all the issues & bugs are sorted out, then have the OPTION of choosing between the Hoyer sheet and the Diane sheet. Otherwise, this is just chaos. This is not possible, there is only one sheet.

oyer said: Hi Joan, this is very strange, I can check but this is out of my scope: I can modify the layout of the sheet and how every field/buttons interact; but I cannot modify the token. However: could you tell me which attribute do you link to the token?    In the sheet are all fields correct? Hi, Hoyer Thanks for the quick reply. The attribute which is failing to link is the "armorclass". But there are many others. In the PC tokens, the armorclass had been always linked with the blue circle, so any change in AC will reflect on the token. For example, if i uncheck the shield, or the armor, i would see how the AC changes on the token immediately. Now, even if in the token properties, appears as linked, it doesn't work: Any ideas? Thanks, and best regards,      Joan

Hi Hoyer, it looks like there is an error in the calculation under the hide skill, the total value is increased by 4. Can you please promote me as gm in your game? Cheers T

Tancredi M. said: Hi Hoyer, it looks like there is an error in the calculation under the hide skill, the total value is increased by 4. Can you please promote me as gm in your game? Cheers T Now you are a GM. It seems it works, please check the field "Global Skill Bonus" on top of the skills list.

Hi Joan, I made some tests in the  Test Sheet  game, and it seems that the problem is related to all attributes not present in the tab "Attributes & Abilities".   I don't know why...  many updates have bean released and may be it's a bug. However to solve the problem you could add an attribute "armorclass" in the tab "Attributes & Abilities" manually, this attribute will remain empty, but the circle of the token will be populated.

Hoyer said: Tancredi M. said: Hi Hoyer, it looks like there is an error in the calculation under the hide skill, the total value is increased by 4. Can you please promote me as gm in your game? Cheers T Now you are a GM. It seems it works, please check the field "Global Skill Bonus" on top of the skills list. I found the issue, is in the charcater size tab, when you modify the size to small is automatically adding a +4 to hide and a -4 in the size mod under grapple. Shouldn't be +4 in the grapple section? And i don't think being a small size automatically gives you +4 in hide. T

Tancredi M. said: I found the issue, is in the charcater size tab, when you modify the size to small is automatically adding a +4 to hide and a -4 in the size mod under grapple. Shouldn't be +4 in the grapple section? And i don't think being a small size automatically gives you +4 in hide. T It lists a hide bonus for small size characters in the srd. <a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#smallCharacters" rel="nofollow">https://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#smallCharacters</a>

Hoyer said: Hi Joan, I made some tests in the&nbsp; Test Sheet &nbsp;game, and it seems that the problem is related to all attributes not present in the tab "Attributes &amp; Abilities".&nbsp; &nbsp;I don't know why...&nbsp; many updates have bean released and may be it's a bug. However to solve the problem you could add an attribute "armorclass" in the tab "Attributes &amp; Abilities" manually, this attribute will remain empty, but the circle of the token will be populated. Well found! Thank you so much. I added the attribute and indeed, now it populates properly. I am not sure which process or change may have bugged this, which before was working, but it's great to be able to make it work again! :) Cheers...

The Macros all were in the spells macro windows &gt; the expandable window that looks like a d20. While the NAMES of the spells remain, the MACROS &nbsp;that actually calculate damage, saving rolls, time of effect, etc., are all GONE. As for the character sheet - I note that there are multiple versions of character sheets for other games; even 3.5e has three? Since you are creating something far beyond Diane's original sheet, I suggest you change to a new overhauled version, with a new name. Otherwise, we will likely have to switch to a sheet that isn't being constantly "improved". Hoyer said: Sean T. said: OK, so while I appreciate that Hoyer is working to update the Diane-created 3.5 DnD character sheets; our group is in a position where we seem to have to check our sheets every time we login to see "what has happened to them now?" First, we lost ALL of our spell macros - these were replaced by the spell name &amp; nothing else. Still is the case, several months later (our non-tech savvy players suffering the most). I'm sorry, it is strange that you have lost your macros, when I modified the section I kept all old attributes to avoid the loose of data, where did you lost you macros?&nbsp; Sean T. said: Is there a way to create a new character sheet that Hoyer can work on, and leave the original Diane sheet alone? Once all the issues &amp; bugs are sorted out, then have the OPTION of choosing between the Hoyer sheet and the Diane sheet. Otherwise, this is just chaos. This is not possible, there is only one sheet.

Hello, Sean This is weird, i had long time ago created many spell macros since the first versions of Diana. They still appear, and none has been deleted with the update. If you click on the top of the spells Tab the selector "Base Mode", it appears the old way, as it used to be before. All my macros are still there and none has been deleted. If you click on the "Full Mode", it appears the new design, which by the way I find it to be much more useful and organized than the old one. In Full mode, remember to click on the small black arrow which opens the area where the macro space is located. It should also be duplicated there (at least, this was my case). Best regards, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Joan Sean T. said: The Macros all were in the spells macro windows &gt; the expandable window that looks like a d20. While the NAMES of the spells remain, the MACROS &nbsp;that actually calculate damage, saving rolls, time of effect, etc., are all GONE. As for the character sheet - I note that there are multiple versions of character sheets for other games; even 3.5e has three? Since you are creating something far beyond Diane's original sheet, I suggest you change to a new overhauled version, with a new name. Otherwise, we will likely have to switch to a sheet that isn't being constantly "improved". Hoyer said: Sean T. said: OK, so while I appreciate that Hoyer is working to update the Diane-created 3.5 DnD character sheets; our group is in a position where we seem to have to check our sheets every time we login to see "what has happened to them now?" First, we lost ALL of our spell macros - these were replaced by the spell name &amp; nothing else. Still is the case, several months later (our non-tech savvy players suffering the most). I'm sorry, it is strange that you have lost your macros, when I modified the section I kept all old attributes to avoid the loose of data, where did you lost you macros?&nbsp; Sean T. said: Is there a way to create a new character sheet that Hoyer can work on, and leave the original Diane sheet alone? Once all the issues &amp; bugs are sorted out, then have the OPTION of choosing between the Hoyer sheet and the Diane sheet. Otherwise, this is just chaos. This is not possible, there is only one sheet.

Sean T. said: As for the character sheet - I note that there are multiple versions of character sheets for other games; even 3.5e has three? Since you are creating something far beyond Diane's original sheet, I suggest you change to a new overhauled version, with a new name. Otherwise, we will likely have to switch to a sheet that isn't being constantly "improved". I'm only answering that part: please read this .

I am playing an elven swashbuckler/champion of corellon larethian, any chance you could add Str + dex and Str + int + dex as choices for ability damage? I am quite enjoying the change as it is in the first place, even if it has introduced a few bugs in our game, we just iron those out in between sessions.

Sean T. said: As for the character sheet - I note that there are multiple versions of character sheets for other games; even 3.5e has three? Since you are creating something far beyond Diane's original sheet, I suggest you change to a new overhauled version, with a new name. Otherwise, we will likely have to switch to a sheet that isn't being constantly "improved". Oh Sean. We've been over this months ago. Hoyer is too stubborn to start his own sheet even though 90% of the changes he's making only benefit him personally. (Have you seen all the toggles for crits lately, can anyone explain how those are supposed to help?) Don't like it? Get a Plus subscription and make your own, peon! In all seriousness though. Hoyer you broke the sheet again. Attack macros (%{name|weapon1attack) put on the Abilities Tab to be used as token buttons do not read any text that comes after them. For whatever reason doing the same thing with a fortitude save (%{name|fortitudecheck}) does not result in the same problem. This was not a problem a couple of weeks ago. I just duplicated the issue on the Test Sheet character: Uwa Oflafro.Go ahead see for yourself. Please fix the problem. This screws up a lot of stuff for me.

Hi Joe,&nbsp; definitely I'm a stubborn!&nbsp; &nbsp;No way..... Again the same question, and again please read this post (this is not my post):&nbsp; previous post &nbsp; And now I have a question, I understand it's a stupid question and I'm stupid, but please let me understand:&nbsp;why don't you use the "Special Properties" field?

Eradan said: Hey Hoyer It seems I can't drag&amp;drop some of the weapons macros into the quick bar anymore, specifically: - the weaponXdamageroll button - the weaponXattack button - weaponXfullattack button Is there a way to fix it please? Hi Eradan,&nbsp; thanks to Joe, I found a workaround for your problem: could you add manually the macro from "Attributes and Abilites" tab? I made a test and it works. I understand that repeating, for every weapons' attacks, this solution could be awkward.... but at this moment is the only solution found.

Mordaedil said: I am playing an elven swashbuckler/champion of corellon larethian, any chance you could add Str + dex and Str + int + dex as choices for ability damage? I am quite enjoying the change as it is in the first place, even if it has introduced a few bugs in our game, we just iron those out in between sessions. Hi Mordael, you will find these two new elements in all combos (PC, summons and NPC) in a few days.

Hoyer said: Hi Eradan,&nbsp; thanks to Joe, I found a workaround for your problem: could you add manually the macro from "Attributes and Abilites" tab? I made a test and it works. I understand that repeating, for every weapons' attacks, this solution could be awkward.... but at this moment is the only solution found. I currently have more than a hundred active character sheets, with 1 to 8 weapons each. Creating attributes to every one of them wouldn't be awkward, it would be a tremendous loss of time for something that was working before, and still works for 5 of the 8 weapons actions. If you need help to review and fix your code, please say so. But I'm not going to waste hundreds of hours to work around a coding mistake that should be simple to fix.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Hoyer said: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Again the same question, and again please read this post (this is not my post):&nbsp; previous post &nbsp; That was not a question. I was the first one to call you out remember? Way back when you started screwing everything up. I even offered you solutions to make everyone happy, but well... you can go back and read it for yourself. You made it very clear at the time that you would be hijacking the sheet and there's nothing us peasant folk can do to stop you. Hoyer said: And now I have a question, I understand it's a stupid question and I'm stupid, but please let me understand:&nbsp;why don't you use the "Special Properties" field? Sure I could do that, and have been, but like Eradan I have hundreds (no joke) of active character sheets, and going through, finding which are affected by your mistake and switching where I put extra info from the abilities box to the "special properties" field (which didn't even exist when I built most of these) is an excessive amount of work to fix an issue that didn't exist before you started messing with things! We should not be responsible for finding work-arounds to your screw ups because you're out of touch with how these sheets are actually used. Please stop acting like the victims of your "upgrades" are somehow to blame because we're using the sheet in a way you don't.

You are right: sarcasm is squandered and useless. Copy the entire sheet it's not a good idea, but i duplicate only the modified sections. Eradan said: If you need help to review and fix your code, please say so. But I'm not going to waste hundreds of hours to work around a coding mistake that should be simple to fix. I don't think this problem is a coding problem, I try to explain the whole situation.&nbsp; &nbsp;May be you could have a different idea. On top of the section there are three radio buttons, and each button indicate how should be calculate the critic damage. My first idea it was to create 3 different text area, one for each type of critic calculation.&nbsp; &nbsp;But this solutions does't work I had to add "?{Critic |No, 0 |Yes, @{weapon1crit} }&nbsp;in the call template, like: {{damage1=Damage: [[ @{weapon1damage} + ?{Critic |No, 0 |Yes, @{weapon1crit} } }}&nbsp; But this does not work, because is a nested macro.&nbsp; &nbsp; I fond these info into the wiki&nbsp; Nesting macro ; I made a lot of test but it doesn't work in this context.&nbsp; &nbsp;If you could find a solution, this should solve the problem. However, I tried a different way. I modified the type of the button, from type="roll" to type="action", this is the actual problem: from a graphical point of view are equals, but when you click on the second I can intercept the roll template execution before is elaborated by the engine, so I can modify the template.&nbsp; &nbsp;I created my own syntax: {{damage1=Damage: [[ @{weapon1damage} ]] # ?{Critic |No, §§ |Yes, §+ [[ @{weapon1crit} ]] crit dmg§ } # }}&nbsp; As you can see I added some special characters, and I created a javascript code to read this syntax end execute the template between the # &nbsp;, in this case ?{Critic |No, 0 |Yes, 1&nbsp; } if the outcome is "No" then I add 0 else I add manually the macro selected. This works, but there are three "problems" (I don't know if these are really a problem, but these generate yours situations): the button type="action" cannot be drag and dropped; if you try to execute an attribute, like&nbsp; @{weapon1crit} , that contains a macro, from the Attributes and Abilities macro, all text written after the attributes is ignored; this is also the reason because the "white line" appears. All of this problem is out of my scope because is how the Roll20 engine works. I hope I was clear. If you want to do some test you can use the character "Test crit 4", use the "weapon 2" and click on "Single attack" button, I modified the template in this way: &amp;{template:DnD35Damage} {{pcflag=true}} {{name=@{character_name} }} {{subtags=Damages with the @{weapon2name} }} {{damage1=Damage: [[ @{weapon2damage} + ?{Critic |No, 0 |Yes, @{weapon2crit} } }} {{notes=@{weapon2specialproperties} }} This is how the damage template should work.&nbsp; &nbsp;If you find the correct syntax to execute the nested macro "@{weapon2crit}" would be awesome, and then I should change the sheet easily.

Can you try to: - Make it a&nbsp; type="roll" again - Use a nested macro for the number of dice to roll - Make the crit multiplier field (weaponXcritmult) into a dropdown (2 to 4) that would be called into the nested macro to roll the needed number of dice

Hi there, I have a few questions about the 3.5 sheet - I am new to it :-) 1. I don't understand the difference betweem these crit modes: What do these different modes do? 2. On the NPC sheet there are areas for Attack 1, Attack 2, and Attack 3. Below these there are simply an Attack and Full Attack area. When would one use the Attack/Full Attack-area instead of Attack 1? Any comments appreciated :)

Eradan said: Can you try to: - Make it a&nbsp;type="roll" again (Hoyer: ok) - Use a nested macro for the number of dice to roll (Hoyer: But the nested macro is my problem, if I use it, my external macro fail&nbsp;) - Make the crit multiplier field (weaponXcritmult) into a dropdown (2 to 4) that would be called into the nested macro to roll the needed number of dice (Hoyer: a combo or a text field, like now, are the the same)

Jacob R. said: Hi there, I have a few questions about the 3.5 sheet (I am new to it 拾). 1. I don't understand the difference betweem these crit modes: What do these different modes do? 2. On the NPC sheet there are areas for Attack 1, Attack 2, and Attack 3. Below these there are simply an Attack and Full Attack area. When would one use the Attack/Full Attack-area instead of Attack 1? Any comments appreciated :) Hi Jacob, here my answer: you can choose your preferred way to calculate the critic damage: if you choose this option you can write your own macro for critic, it will be executed without any changes; this is the critic calculation defined in the rules, the value of the critic macro al execute n-times, so the damage is rolled n-times(example: flaming axe 1d8+1d6 damage critic x3: 1d8 + 1d6 (base damage) + 1d8 +1d8 (critic damage executed 2-times); this choice is similar to the previous, but in this case the critic macro is multiplied n-times(example: flaming axe 1d8+1d6 damage critic x3: 1d8 + 1d6 (base damage) + 2*1d8 (critic damage multiplied 2-times). The section Other attacks, it's the old version of this section, I added the first three attacks filed some months ago, so I keep it only to&nbsp;backward compatibility, if you use the previous attacks filed probably you don't need it. I hope I was clear

Hi Hoyer, Thanks for the answer. I now understand the crit-modes. Thanks a bunch :) I am still not sure about the various attack-sections. So say I want to enter a monster that has a Bite and Tail attack (just an example). I guess I would then enter Bite in Attack 1 and Tail in Attack 2. Right? Other Attack is for adding Attack 4, 5, 6,.... Right? But what then is this for: Is the above image the old ones you kept for compatibility? I.e. I can simply ignore those? Thanks!

At this moment, the NPC section has only 3 slots: Attack 1, Attack 2 and Attack 3. If you need more slots, I can add a dynamic section like in Weapon section. Yes, you can ignore the "Other attack" section.

Hoyer said: At this moment, the NPC section has only 3 slots: Attack 1, Attack 2 and Attack 3. I might be dense, or we might be misunderstanding each other. But as I see it in the Other Attack section I have just added Attack 4, 5 and 6. See here: Isn't this how Other Attacks are meant to be used?

Ops..... you are right.... Other Attacks is used to add more space for attacks, and you can ignore the two other fields Attack and Full Attack, these fields are preset only for&nbsp; backward compatibility.

Hoyer said: Eradan said: Can you try to: - Make it a&nbsp;type="roll" again (Hoyer: ok) - Use a nested macro for the number of dice to roll (Hoyer: But the nested macro is my problem, if I use it, my external macro fail&nbsp;) - Make the crit multiplier field (weaponXcritmult) into a dropdown (2 to 4) that would be called into the nested macro to roll the needed number of dice (Hoyer: a combo or a text field, like now, are the the same) They're the same, but a text field allows anything, and that could be a problem. Basically, what we need is to mix the old macro: [[ (@{weapon1critmult}-1) ]]d6 + [[ (@{weapon1critmult}-1) ]] *( @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] with the new system. So the basic dice damage of the weapons must be separated into two fields: a) number of dice (weaponXdicenumber) b) type of dice (weaponXdicetype) while changing the weaponXstatdamage into permanent bonus damage if that's needed. And of course we keep: c) critical multiplier (weaponXcritmult) So the new damage macro would be [[@{weapon1dicenumber}]]d[[@{weapon1dicetype}]] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon] + @{weapon1vardamage}[Var Dmg] And the new crit macro would be [[(@{weapon1dicenumber}*(@{weapon1critmult} -1))]]d[[@{weapon1dicetype}]] + [[ (@{weapon1critmult}-1) ]] * (@{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon]) or something close to it. That way, you don't need external macros, and you can keep the type="roll". And if you make a), b) and c) into dropdowns, people have less way to fuck up their weapon damage: a) 1≤value≤4 (I don't know of any weapon that uses more than 2 dice, but just in case) b) 2≤value≤12 (unless someone can fin a weapon using d20 or d100?) c) 2≤value≤4 (same here, I don't think crit multipliers go higher than 4) It would still mean having to check hundreds of weapons, but it would be way easier and faster to do than adding attributes to the character sheets.

Hi Joan! Thanks for the kind reply. This experience has been a roller-coaster. Again, I appreciate people taking their personal time to update or improve things; I don't appreciate pushing out global changes that affect everyone, without notice or any option to opt out. I know about the black arrows and the macro windows to update spell actions and effects, but thanks again for pointing those out - others reading this might find it useful, and sometimes these are easy to overlook! Macros for spells have either disappeared entirely, or they've been defaulted into "cure wounds" spell macros for the entire list. When you have 8-10th level spell users, these lists get pretty long, and it's a lot of work to re-enter the spells for a lot of players. I've had to replicate a lot of work to update spells and other options for my players, and some of these have been minor, while others have been more fundamental. I see that there are now three D&amp;D 3.5 character sheets, so we are going to explore one of the other options, or just go with pathfinder to avoid more gameday problems with the character sheets. Thanks for your advice, though! Sean Joan F. said: Hello, Sean This is weird, i had long time ago created many spell macros since the first versions of Diana. They still appear, and none has been deleted with the update. If you click on the top of the spells Tab the selector "Base Mode", it appears the old way, as it used to be before. All my macros are still there and none has been deleted. If you click on the "Full Mode", it appears the new design, which by the way I find it to be much more useful and organized than the old one. In Full mode, remember to click on the small black arrow which opens the area where the macro space is located. It should also be duplicated there (at least, this was my case). Best regards, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Joan Sean T. said: The Macros all were in the spells macro windows &gt; the expandable window that looks like a d20. While the NAMES of the spells remain, the MACROS &nbsp;that actually calculate damage, saving rolls, time of effect, etc., are all GONE. As for the character sheet - I note that there are multiple versions of character sheets for other games; even 3.5e has three? Since you are creating something far beyond Diane's original sheet, I suggest you change to a new overhauled version, with a new name. Otherwise, we will likely have to switch to a sheet that isn't being constantly "improved". Hoyer said: Sean T. said: OK, so while I appreciate that Hoyer is working to update the Diane-created 3.5 DnD character sheets; our group is in a position where we seem to have to check our sheets every time we login to see "what has happened to them now?" First, we lost ALL of our spell macros - these were replaced by the spell name &amp; nothing else. Still is the case, several months later (our non-tech savvy players suffering the most). I'm sorry, it is strange that you have lost your macros, when I modified the section I kept all old attributes to avoid the loose of data, where did you lost you macros?&nbsp; Sean T. said: Is there a way to create a new character sheet that Hoyer can work on, and leave the original Diane sheet alone? Once all the issues &amp; bugs are sorted out, then have the OPTION of choosing between the Hoyer sheet and the Diane sheet. Otherwise, this is just chaos. This is not possible, there is only one sheet.

Hi there, It seems there are two Initiative-buttons on the sheet. One on the sheet itself, that works correctly in the sense it takes into account the Initiative modifier. Then there's also an initiative token action button, that doesn't take into account the modifier. Why is that? And also, is the token action modifiable?

It's not a good idea to hard-code a token action into the sheet: <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/Button#Token_Action" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/Button#Token_Action</a>

Hoyer! Any updates on fixing the issues with running the attack rolls through the abilities tab, and the same issue that prevents those affected buttons to be dropped on the macro bar? Looks like Eradan had some suggestions. They didn't work? This is causing a lot of problems for me since I cannot whisper rolls to myself either. Oh what fun it is when after weeks the players are finally at the final showdown. The evil boss gives his rousing monologue then charges in for the attack and... all his special abilities and weaknesses are displayed in the chat. (But you know. Only if I've put them in the special abilities field like you recommend.) My suggestion would be to change it back to how it was when it worked, but I have a feeling I know what the response will be...

I'm sorry, I hope next week I going to work again on this issue.

While I too enjoy having more fields to point to with the macros so we can have more complex functions, and by the way it would be great if you could manage to add a button somewhere that can create an uniquely named extra field to insert values that can be then referenced inside a macro, being on the bleeding edge of the development cycle can lead to bugs and errors when making changes somewhere. To address this problem I would suggest to create a top level radio button&nbsp; with three options "Original/Latest Stable/BETA" that can change between the original version of the 3.5 sheet from Diana, the current version made by you, and the beta version where all the development changes would be made untill they're 100% foolproof and then ready to deploy in the stable sheet. I guess it would be a nightmare to code it since it will functionally require to have 3 copies of the sheet but this way we would avoid all the drama of broken macros or misbehaving functions

First of all: sorry for my silence during these months, and to let open this issue. Second: thanks for all suggestions, I try to give a feedback to everyone. The most common suggestion is to replace the entire sheet 2/3 times, but this is not possible.&nbsp; &nbsp;I added several features, and this means replicate this code several times... moreover, I should share a filed that contains a macro between all sheet version, but every version should contains a different version of the macro. The idea of TheGamer it's similar, but to avoid to activate a feature without test I create a specific game&nbsp; Test Sheet &nbsp;to share the new feature and test it (thanks to Eradan to everyone how made a test). Eradan said: They're the same, but a text field allows anything, and that could be a problem. Basically, what we need is to mix the old macro: [[ (@{weapon1critmult}-1) ]]d6 + [[ (@{weapon1critmult}-1) ]] *( @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] with the new system. So the basic dice damage of the weapons must be separated into two fields: a) number of dice (weaponXdicenumber) b) type of dice (weaponXdicetype) while changing the weaponXstatdamage into permanent bonus damage if that's needed. And of course we keep: c) critical multiplier (weaponXcritmult) So the new damage macro would be [[@{weapon1dicenumber}]]d[[@{weapon1dicetype}]] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon] + @{weapon1vardamage}[Var Dmg] And the new crit macro would be [[(@{weapon1dicenumber}*(@{weapon1critmult} -1))]]d[[@{weapon1dicetype}]] + [[ (@{weapon1critmult}-1) ]] * (@{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon]) or something close to it. That way, you don't need external macros, and you can keep the type="roll". And if you make a), b) and c) into dropdowns, people have less way to fuck up their weapon damage: a) 1≤value≤4 (I don't know of any weapon that uses more than 2 dice, but just in case) b) 2≤value≤12 (unless someone can fin a weapon using d20 or d100?) c) 2≤value≤4 (same here, I don't think crit multipliers go higher than 4) It would still mean having to check hundreds of weapons, but it would be way easier and faster to do than adding attributes to the character sheets. This could be an interesting option, but doesn't solve the problem: the problem is the roll template not the macro. At this moment these are the macros: damage: @{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon] + @{weapon1vardamage}[Var Dmg] crti damage: @{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon] and these macros are quite similar to yours: damage: [[@{weapon1dicenumber}]]d[[@{weapon1dicetype}]] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon] + @{weapon1vardamage}[Var Dmg] crti damage: [[(@{weapon1dicenumber}*(@{weapon1critmult} -1))]]d[[@{weapon1dicetype}]] + [[ (@{weapon1critmult}-1) ]] * (@{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon]) I found a problem when I try to define in the roll template id a damage is crit or not: {{damage1=Damage: [[ @{weapon1damage} + ?{Critic |No, 0 |Yes, @{weapon1crit} } }}&nbsp; This part of the roll template doesn't work, and in the roll template there is no way to condition the execution of a macro, it's only possible to condition if print apart of the template in the chat.

I made some test and the problem is " ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon]) ", if I remove It the roll template works fine

I found a partial solution, at this moment it works only for the damage button, you can test with the PC "Test crit 5". Now I try to generalize this solution.

I don't understand this part: + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?&amp;#124;0&amp;#125; What is it supposed to do?

Hi, I've just found out that the "extra field" thing that I said it would be nice to have it's technically already possible. I accomplished it by creating a custom attribute in a character sheet (separate or the same one) and then calling it in a macro like this: now I ask you, can we have a "copy" of basically the same button in the main tab of the character sheet instead of the third tab so the custom fields would be more easely manageable?

Eradan said: I don't understand this part: + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?&amp;#124;0&amp;#125; What is it supposed to do? According to this post&nbsp; Nesting macro &nbsp;if you have a nested macro you must escape some special characters of the internal macro.&nbsp; In this case this is the external macro,&nbsp; ?{Critic |No, [[ @{weapon1damage} ]] |Yes,[[ @{weapon1damage} ]]+[[ @{weapon1crit} ]] crit dmg } and there are two internal macros weapon1damage:&nbsp; @{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus? &amp;#124; 0 &amp;#125; [Ad'l Dmg Bon]+ @{weapon1vardamage}[Var Dmg] and&nbsp; weapon1crit:&nbsp; @{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus? &amp;#124; 0 &amp;#125; [Ad'l Dmg Bon] According to this table: Character Replacement | &nbsp;(pipe) &amp;#124; } &amp;rbrace; ,&nbsp; &amp;#125; I must replace the | and }, so ?{Additional Damage Bonus? &amp;#124; 0 &amp;#125; --&gt;&nbsp; ?{Additional Damage Bonus? | 0 }

TheGamer said: Hi, I've just found out that the "extra field" thing that I said it would be nice to have it's technically already possible. I accomplished it by creating a custom attribute in a character sheet (separate or the same one) and then calling it in a macro like this: now I ask you, can we have a "copy" of basically the same button in the main tab of the character sheet instead of the third tab so the custom fields would be more easely manageable? Yes, it's not a problem.&nbsp; &nbsp;Of course I must close the "main issue", than we can define where to put the button and the new fields.

Basically, there are two main problems: When you roll a single damage, I need to identify if it's critical or not the solution for this problem it's simple, create 2 button: one button if you want to roll a normal damage and another one if you want to roll a critical damage; it's quite simple and I don't think It could be a problem; the second problem it's more difficult to solve: when you roll a critical damage and you choose the standard critic mode (reroll the base damage n-times), in this situation I found 2 possible solutions: the first one is suggested by Eradan: split the damage filed in two subfileds: number of dice and type of dice the second solution is more complicated from technical side, but there are no changes on the sheet: when the user write then critic multiplier of the weapon, I can intercept the new value and modify the macro of the damage in the correct way, for example: You start with a sword, and in this case the critic macro is this: (@{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon]) Then you change the sword a add an axe, so you must modify the critic multiplier from 2 to 3, so I can modify the macro filed in this way: (@{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon])+(@{weapon1statdamage}[Dmg] + @{weapon1damagestat}[Weapon Dmg Ability] + @{weapon1enh}[Weapon Enh] + @{weapon1specialize}[Weapon Spec] + ?{Additional Damage Bonus?|0}[Ad'l Dmg Bon]) The first solution has more impact for the user because he must modify all his weapons...&nbsp; I try to release the second solution on the&nbsp; Test Sheet .

But it's the more resilient in the long term and the most simple to implement. Currently, the Simple Attack + Damage macro on the Test Sheet gives us this: Second pop-up box Third pop-up box Fourth pop-up box Result Let's avoid complicating the sheet any further please.

Eradan said: But it's the more resilient in the long term and the most simple to implement. Currently, the Simple Attack + Damage macro on the Test Sheet gives us this: Second pop-up box Third pop-up box Fourth pop-up box Result Let's avoid complicating the sheet any further please. The current version on test sheet is not correct, please ignore it, it was a test and in my previous post I told that only the damage button works.

Eradan said: But it's the more resilient in the long term and the most simple to implement. Let's avoid complicating the sheet any further please. You are right, but these two phrases don't match...&nbsp; From my point of view implement the first or the second solution is the same, moreover your solution is easier to implement.&nbsp; &nbsp;I prefer the second because from the user side there are no changes, instead the first has some impacts. If you prefer I can implement both on test sheet: the first in the first weapon and the second in the second weapon.&nbsp; &nbsp;Then you can choose the preferred one. However if you prefer the first one, ok, no problem

What do the other users here think? Which solution do you prefer?

Sorry, I was not clear. Im my opinion split the damage filed in two parts may not be accepted by some player, because everyone must change their sheet, for example, you told that you have a lot of PC/PNC this means that you must modify all weapons of your characters.&nbsp; &nbsp; Probably someone may not&nbsp;appreciate it. On other hand you are right when you said that modify the macro value it's very delicate. Both solutions have pro and con...&nbsp; However the test sheet is almost done, then I share you the test version