[New] D&D 5e Shaped Character Sheet

Senses: There is no "senses" variable. There is Blindsight, Darkvision, Tremorsense, and Truesight. Blindsight has a toggle that says "Blind beyond" which you may want to print out as well. Roll templates: The name that was shown was the journal name, not the token name. And to do the token name would require that the GM have the token selected which removes the possibility to use the sheet alone without selecting an option. So we have to cross that off the list. Same with status markers - it's only on the token. We could just show the journal name, but for GMs like myself who roll openly it immediately identifies the name of the creatures which is a bummer. I wish I could hide some elements to GM only. Even then though I'm not sure there is much value as typically an encounter is several of the same monster so showing the name doesn't help identify which one rolled it. I'd suggest you look into using Aaron's TurnMarker. Or my modified version of it to use the 5e template and player colors. That makes it pretty clear to me which creature's turn it is. I don't think the sheet can accomplish what you want.

I'm having issues with the initiative roll. the sheet shows a bonus but the roll in the chat window is not showing it.

Bryan S. said: I'm having issues with the initiative roll. the sheet shows a bonus but the roll in the chat window is not showing it. That's embarassing.. The sheet wasn't adding dex, jack of all trades, or the bonus to initiative. I must've took it out by accident when I implemented nested inline rolls. This is fixed in the code so any mentor can get the latest there, but non-mentors will have to wait until roll20 updates it.

Mark said: Senses: There is no "senses" variable. There is Blindsight, Darkvision, Tremorsense, and Truesight. Blindsight has a toggle that says "Blind beyond" which you may want to print out as well. Sorry, I guess I dont know how to call these? {{Darkvision=@{selected|darkvision}}} doesn't pull anything. Roll templates: The name that was shown was the journal name, not the token name. And to do the token name would require that the GM have the token selected which removes the possibility to use the sheet alone without selecting an option. So we have to cross that off the list. Same with status markers - it's only on the token. We could just show the journal name, but for GMs like myself who roll openly it immediately identifies the name of the creatures which is a bummer. I wish I could hide some elements to GM only. Even then though I'm not sure there is much value as typically an encounter is several of the same monster so showing the name doesn't help identify which one rolled it. I'd suggest you look into using Aaron's TurnMarker. Or my modified version of it to use the 5e template and player colors. That makes it pretty clear to me which creature's turn it is. I don't think the sheet can accomplish what you want. Thats ok, was more of a pipedream anyways, I actually have use the TurnMarker but it became rather cumbersome with the Round Counter not working quite right, so I could look at using that again but really I would like to see the name on the NPC Repeating actions. They are still there on the skills. I can understand about open rolling DM's, I've done that too, but if i'm going to allow them to see the bonuses they have to attack and damage then I might as well show their name as well, or create a "dumbie name" like Lich 1 or Bob the Builder 2 etc..

Greg B. said: Sorry, I guess I dont know how to call these? {{Darkvision=@{selected|darkvision}}} doesn't pull anything. darkvision, blindsight, blindsight_blind_beyond, tremorsense, truesight. They will only pull something if those fields are set. Greg B. said: I would like to see the name on the NPC Repeating actions. They are still there on the skills. I can understand about open rolling DM's, I've done that too, but if i'm going to allow them to see the bonuses they have to attack and damage then I might as well show their name as well, or create a "dumbie name" like Lich 1 or Bob the Builder 2 etc.. It will never have the # because it uses the journal name, not the token name. I roll openly to give players transparency so that there is never a question of fudging the rolls in either favor - I tend to roll high for NPCs so it's good that I roll openly. I used to have DMs fudges rolls and it isn't fun for me so I try to be open with my players. I don't roll openly to give them extra information. Now whether name is too much information is questionable. The technical concern is that by adding name it requires another line for every action. Not terrible, but it feels nice and compact right now. The other problem with names, and specifically for PCs, is they are of a variable length and can get quite wide. I'm not sure how I feel about names. I don't think the value for PCs is there, but it may be for NPCs - hard to say. I'll think on it and see how it plays this weekend. If anyone else has an opinion please do share.

I just learned about the optional Proficiency die. For anyone unfamiliar that means using a die (1d4 for lvls 1-4 for example) The biggest hiccup I see is that it does not apply to spell save DCs so it can't be as simple as changing the proficiency field to a 1d4 or whatever, I still like the idea and was wondering if that is something that you would consider implementing

Ken M. said: I just learned about the optional Proficiency die. For anyone unfamiliar that means using a die (1d4 for lvls 1-4 for example) The biggest hiccup I see is that it does not apply to spell save DCs so it can't be as simple as changing the proficiency field to a 1d4 or whatever, I still like the idea and was wondering if that is something that you would consider implementing Is this a variant rule somewhere? Anything more I can read on it to further understand?

Mark said: Greg B. said: Sorry, I guess I dont know how to call these? {{Darkvision=@{selected|darkvision}}} doesn't pull anything. darkvision, blindsight, blindsight_blind_beyond, tremorsense, truesight. They will only pull something if those fields are set. Greg B. said: I would like to see the name on the NPC Repeating actions. They are still there on the skills. I can understand about open rolling DM's, I've done that too, but if i'm going to allow them to see the bonuses they have to attack and damage then I might as well show their name as well, or create a "dumbie name" like Lich 1 or Bob the Builder 2 etc.. It will never have the # because it uses the journal name, not the token name. I roll openly to give players transparency so that there is never a question of fudging the rolls in either favor - I tend to roll high for NPCs so it's good that I roll openly. I used to have DMs fudges rolls and it isn't fun for me so I try to be open with my players. I don't roll openly to give them extra information. Now whether name is too much information is questionable. The technical concern is that by adding name it requires another line for every action. Not terrible, but it feels nice and compact right now. The other problem with names, and specifically for PCs, is they are of a variable length and can get quite wide. I'm not sure how I feel about names. I don't think the value for PCs is there, but it may be for NPCs - hard to say. I'll think on it and see how it plays this weekend. If anyone else has an opinion please do share. I do the same. in most of what you do mark and how to handle rolls. As for names, if there is a major need to hide the names, I hide them via token names. Otherwise, if its a creatures name? Just let them know what it is. Its pretty much pointless to hide it since it will either boil down to two things. Rolls to check what it is or doesn't care and tries to kill it anyways. Again it really depends on the need for it. Just how much it might impact the game vs ease of use and speed of play. I mean if you are really hell bent on hiding names out of Turn order you could just use the Tokenmod script to remove the names of all the tokens selected and replace them with something else.

Mark said: Ken M. said: I just learned about the optional Proficiency die. For anyone unfamiliar that means using a die (1d4 for lvls 1-4 for example) The biggest hiccup I see is that it does not apply to spell save DCs so it can't be as simple as changing the proficiency field to a 1d4 or whatever, I still like the idea and was wondering if that is something that you would consider implementing Is this a variant rule somewhere? Anything more I can read on it to further understand? This rule is an optional rule within the DMG and was in the playtest. Its basically swapping out a flat PB for a die instead, or a pool you can spend. I can't remember off the top of my head. It was things like, if you were proficient in a skill, you roll a 1d4 instead or higher depending on your level.

Saevar L. said: Its basically swapping out a flat PB for a die instead, or a pool you can spend. I can't remember off the top of my head. It was things like, if you were proficient in a skill, you roll a 1d4 instead or higher depending on your level. Looking at the numbers I'm doubtful it is technically feasible. I would need to use a d4 in the case of 1-4, a d6 for 5-8, a d8 for 9-12, a d10 for 13-16, and a d12 for 17-20. I would seemingly need to use if statements which roll20 cannot do unless someone has a way of working that out. EDIT: I can actually just make a formula that gives me 4,6,8,10,12 at those intervals and use that with d(FORMULA) and it should work. I'll add this to my todo and probably look at it this weekend.

Saevar L. said: As for names, if there is a major need to hide the names, I hide them via token names. Otherwise, if its a creatures name? Just let them know what it is. Its pretty much pointless to hide it since it will either boil down to two things. Rolls to check what it is or doesn't care and tries to kill it anyways. Again it really depends on the need for it. Just how much it might impact the game vs ease of use and speed of play. I mean if you are really hell bent on hiding names out of Turn order you could just use the Tokenmod script to remove the names of all the tokens selected and replace them with something else. To give history: In cleaning up the roll templates I found the names on PCs to be extra unneeded information. It was simply taking space that could be used for better things (especially for spells who want to show a lot). Consequently by the same logic if it is removed there then it should be removed everywhere. After I did that I thought it was a nice side effect that it would no longer show the name to PCs. Now that may be my own opinion and it may not be the best choice for everyone which is why I'm asking here. I think the only area it should quesitonally exist is for NPCs, but that adds some more complexity because I now have to add the name for NPCs on actions, spells, death saves, hd, initiative, skills, ability checks, ability saves. In every one of those cases except actions the PC shares the same roll so I'd have to only show it in some cases. TL;DR: The main argument I have is from the technical / design mindset. Not showing the name to PCs to hide information is a side effect.

Mark said: Saevar L. said: As for names, if there is a major need to hide the names, I hide them via token names. Otherwise, if its a creatures name? Just let them know what it is. Its pretty much pointless to hide it since it will either boil down to two things. Rolls to check what it is or doesn't care and tries to kill it anyways. Again it really depends on the need for it. Just how much it might impact the game vs ease of use and speed of play. I mean if you are really hell bent on hiding names out of Turn order you could just use the Tokenmod script to remove the names of all the tokens selected and replace them with something else. To give history: In cleaning up the roll templates I found the names on PCs to be extra unneeded information. It was simply taking space that could be used for better things (especially for spells who want to show a lot). Consequently by the same logic if it is removed there then it should be removed everywhere. After I did that I thought it was a nice side effect that it would no longer show the name to PCs. Now that may be my own opinion and it may not be the best choice for everyone which is why I'm asking here. I think the only area it should quesitonally exist is for NPCs, but that adds some more complexity because I now have to add the name for NPCs on actions, spells, death saves, hd, initiative, skills, ability checks, ability saves. In every one of those cases except actions the PC shares the same roll so I'd have to only show it in some cases. TL;DR: The main argument I have is from the technical / design mindset. Not showing the name to PCs to hide information is a side effect. No way to do the best of both worlds and create a drop down box like with Whispered to GM or Public? I think that would be the BEST way to handle it.. It puts the code in there but only displays it if the option is selected? Possible?

Greg B. said: drop down box like with Whispered to GM or Public? I think that would be the BEST way to handle it.. It puts the code in there but only displays it if the option is selected? Possible? The character_name is already there on each roll. I will add a setting to display it or not with not displaying it being the default.

Mark said: Greg B. said: drop down box like with Whispered to GM or Public? I think that would be the BEST way to handle it.. It puts the code in there but only displays it if the option is selected? Possible? The character_name is already there on each roll. I will add a setting to display it or not with not displaying it being the default. Perfect, that would be the best of both worlds right?

Greg B. said: Perfect, that would be the best of both worlds right? It will accomplish my goals while still letting people choose to do it another way. Settings aren't the best solution for UI choices(and other choices) as they have to be set on each individual journal. If this could be done via API on all of them that would be great. 14th May 2015 Fixed initiative Removed name from the other roll templates as well as cleaned more up Added an option setting to show the character name on all rolls. It is off by default. Finished the setting already for you.

Mark said: Greg B. said: Perfect, that would be the best of both worlds right? It will accomplish my goals while still letting people choose to do it another way. Settings aren't the best solution for UI choices(and other choices) as they have to be set on each individual journal. If this could be done via API on all of them that would be great. 14th May 2015 Fixed initiative Removed name from the other roll templates as well as cleaned more up Added an option setting to show the character name on all rolls. It is off by default. Finished the setting already for you. Awesome! Thanks Mark I'll play with it later.

Mark said: Is this a variant rule somewhere? Anything more I can read on it to further understand? Yes it is a variant in the DMG.chapter 9 page 263.There is also a video about it here <a href="https://youtu.be/RI3qx9oWWa8" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/RI3qx9oWWa8</a>

Mark said: Saevar L. said: Its basically swapping out a flat PB for a die instead, or a pool you can spend. I can't remember off the top of my head. It was things like, if you were proficient in a skill, you roll a 1d4 instead or higher depending on your level. Looking at the numbers I'm doubtful it is technically feasible. I would need to use a d4 in the case of 1-4, a d6 for 5-8, a d8 for 9-12, a d10 for 13-16, and a d12 for 17-20. I would seemingly need to use if statements which roll20 cannot do unless someone has a way of working that out. EDIT: I can actually just make a formula that gives me 4,6,8,10,12 at those intervals and use that with d(FORMULA) and it should work. I'll add this to my todo and probably look at it this weekend. I figured a formula would work, the issue I saw was that it does not apply to spell save DC, Also, expertise and Jack of all trades need to be taken into account.

Ken M. said: I figured a formula would work, the issue I saw was that it does not apply to spell save DC, Also, expertise and Jack of all trades need to be taken into account. Hmm so it's not straight forward replacing always. I won't work on it now then. I can add it to the someday list, but the cost seems too high for the small niche benefit.

If I downloaded the sheet and installed as custom, will I need to continue downloading and installing custom? Or will it still be updated through teh system?

Robert N. said: If I downloaded the sheet and installed as custom, will I need to continue downloading and installing custom? Or will it still be updated through teh system? You'll have to manually update it if you go custom.

Out of curiosity, what environment are you executing the gulp include in? The compiled HTML I see in your branch always has CRLFs, yet my gulp include just uses LFs (running in a Linux environment). Edit: Huh, actually, the version in your branch has CRLFs, LFs, and CRs: "D&D_5e.html: exported SGML document, UTF-8 Unicode text, with very long lines, with CRLF, CR, LF line terminators" It seems like it might be difficult for me to get Git to recognize this properly. Git wants everything to be either CRLFs or just LFs, so when I make any changes, git marks the entire file as modified, and then spits out the following at me: warning: CRLF will be replaced by LF in D&D_5e_Shaped/D&D_5e.html. The file will have its original line endings in your working directory. I tried creating a .gitattributes file indicating that the compiled version should have CRLFs, but that humourously resulted in the following, due to the mix of LFs and CRLFs: warning: LF will be replaced by CRLF in D&D_5e_Shaped/D&D_5e.html. The file will have its original line endings in your working directory. I seem to be in a catch-22 :) Any suggestions?

I use IntelliJ. It pulls from git (which should be LF) into my windows format of CRLF. The gulp includes are a bit buggy with CRLF so I tried to force all files to be LF even on my windows machine - it worked on my work machine, but not on my home machine. I was getting the same error that you are. I therefore changed them all back to CRLF locally. Though I don't think this changes git.. maybe it did. I verified today and only spellcasting_bonuses.html was LF on my home machine - changed it to CRLF. From what I can see of the line endings it seems the gulp include uses CR sometimes and LF sometimes.. I fiddled with 2 different ones and neither was great at preserving tabs.

Mark said: Ken M. said: I figured a formula would work, the issue I saw was that it does not apply to spell save DC, Also, expertise and Jack of all trades need to be taken into account. Hmm so it's not straight forward replacing always. I won't work on it now then. I can add it to the someday list, but the cost seems too high for the small niche benefit. Makes sense. I haven't even talked to my players yet to see if they would like to use the variant. I think I would like to use it eventually, but I can build my own macros if needed.

The most unimportant annoying thing is that typing shaped into the search box does not bring up this character sheet when you're making a new campaign, as prolific maker of campaigns it is so inconsquentially frustrating.

RMcD said: The most unimportant annoying thing is that typing shaped into the search box does not bring up this character sheet when you're making a new campaign, as prolific maker of campaigns it is so inconsquentially frustrating. Try typing "5th"

FYI I reverted my earlier "fix" of initative. It was there before and was now adding twice.

The new weapon section seems to be rolling secondary damage dice twice, the fix seems to need to be here (line 8211 of latest code): &lt;input type="hidden" name="attr_repeating_weapons_melee_0_var_second_damage" value="{{action_second_damage=[[ @{repeating_weapons_melee_0_second_dmg} + @{repeating_weapons_melee_0_second_dmg} + (@{global_weapon_damage_bonus}) + (@{global_melee_damage_bonus}) + 0d0]]}} {{action_second_damage_type=@{repeating_weapons_melee_0_second_dmg_type}}}"&gt;

To be perfectly honest, I am not a huge fan of the new weapon section and prefer the old style. Also while I like the global bonuses being integrated in on that page it currently isn't well "balanced" (which I am sure you are aware of, but thought to add the constructive criticism.

How would you change/improve it? Do you also not like the style of actions or spells? They're basically the same style. I actually envision people using quick attacks instead of the weapons page as that is quicker to digest. I could also include a quick attacks on the weapons page that shows them all in the same compact form. That would also balance out the bonuses.

Adding quick weapons on that page is a great idea to balance them out. I generally don't use the spell sheet except for specific damage spells because right now it is too tedious to manage spells on the sheet (data entry, not able to re-order/move repeatable items, all of the challenges associated with repeatable sections). So all in all for the limited amount I use them it works well enough. The weapons section will probably be fine, but I like the simple look, feel, clean lines of the table style, and wouldn't even mind seeing something similar for spells (though that becomes very challenging base on how "wordy" spells can be). I haven't run a game from an NPC perspective using the shaped sheet (only explored it from the player perspective so far), so I don't have practical experience to comment. I do worry that it may be too much, but if the importer works cleanly, then it likely isn't an issue.

This may be me being a complete moron, as I have only begun to DM 5E. Why is there a second roll on every attack made from the sheet? There are two "vs AC" rolls. Is this just "what you would see if you had advantage/disadvantage", but always visible?

It's part of the base roll20 rolling. Just ignore the second roll if it doesn't apply.

Askren said: This may be me being a complete moron, as I have only begun to DM 5E. Why is there a second roll on every attack made from the sheet? There are two "vs AC" rolls. Is this just "what you would see if you had advantage/disadvantage", but always visible? Yes, that's for advantage/disadvantage rolls. If you have advantage - take the best of the two, if you have disadvantage - take the worst of the two. Otherwise just use the first. I think it used to roll both of the d20s graphically (if 3d dice are enabled), and then it seems like it was just rolling one of them, and now it looks like neither 'physically' roll. Not sure if it's a sheet thing, a 3d dice issue or something else.

Rolling 2 d20s is a 5e thing, not a roll20 thing. The default sheet started with it. There isn't really a different good way to do (dis)advantage in the roll20 system. @Kevin: I will work towards Quick Weapons on the weapons page (and actions for NPCs) over the next few days. I think it's a really good idea that you prompted from me. :)

What's up with the character sheets? I've been having trouble rolling off of the character sheets for three weeks now. It doesn't roll initiatives correctly (doesn't add the dex to the roll). The last two weeks it's been botching the attack rolls. Then last night the to attack roll worked but every damage roll said I rolled a five on the dice. Every single one for the whole night. Does anybody know if this problem is being worked on?

I played a 6 hour session on Sunday and had no issues other than the initiative doubling that I identified earlier which was only on the github version and not the live version. Rolling 5s is not related to the sheet at all. Roll20 does all the rolls. Adding modifiers may be related, but you'll have to be more specific and give me a way to reproduce the issue. I see initiative has the dex added. Can you please post a screenshot of the character sheet and the roll with the roll hovered over? I suspect you may be looking in the wrong place now that nested inline rolls are used to show the simplified modifiers. EDIT: I tested initiative on the live version. I see it working. Please let me know if you see something else (include a pic as stated above)

When we click on the initiative roll it gives us simply the number that the die rolled. It is not adding our dex to the roll. This is happening for all four of us in two different states. When I rolled an attack off of the character sheet it would add the appropriate modifiers to the attack roll but it said every single damage roll of the night that I rolled a five on the dice for every last roll. We finished the campaign last night and I deleted it so I can't do a screen shot. We've been having problems rolling off of the character sheets for three weeks now. All four of us on four different computers, across two states, and three internet providers.

States, isp, or computer would have no impact on this issue. I cannot help without further details. I have posted the reproduction above showing that it works.

This is from the new campaign I'm creating and it's still not adding the initiative to the roll. It should say d20+4.

The error is shown there: you must have a token selected to use it. If you are on mobile or don't want that you can turn it off on the settings page. I've never seen that error state though.. it shouldn't roll at all after erroring. I'll verify in a bit that mine doesn't.

I had the token selected and it still gave the error. It was doing that last night too. It'll say error with the character selected but then still do a roll. I even double checked after I got the error to make sure the character was selected and it indeed was.

In this screen shot you can see that the token is selected yet I still get the error message and the roll still does not add the initiative.

Can you upload that img to a different service like imgur? it's pure blur on the details. I assume you're using the live version of the sheet? What does the date show? I'm using the "9th May" version and it doesn't roll after it errors... Maybe this is a mentor vs non-mentor issue? I'll PM Aaron.

It's the may 9th version. No I can't make the picture clearer I tried in photoshop and I don't have/use imgur. And one of our players/DM's is a subscriber and he is having the problem as well.

<a href="http://imgur.com/" rel="nofollow">http://imgur.com/</a> you don't have to sign up to upload.

I think he wanted you to upload it to imgur and then paste the link here so its high res, hard to make out those details without a decent res to see it at.