D&D 5e - Fighting style modifiers

Is there a smarter way to add the +2 to hit modifiers from e.g. Fighting Style: Archer to the D&D 5e character sheet than adding it as a modifier of 2 under Bonuses/Penalties under Core Stats?

Is there a reason you wouldn't add it there? This is the area for bonuses such as this.

No, I would add it always I guess. it is a just harder maintain the character sheet for the player when there is just a number in this box and not say a line saying +2 from Fighting Style: Archer, +1 from a temporary spell, -3 from currently having an eye infection and so on. I'm thinking it makes it easier for the player to maintain it from session to session than just seeing the result of +0 of this box. Which is why I asked if this was a smarter way to do it.

You could always add a reference on the class tab. What I often do is in the class box I will have them actually note their choices per level in one of the text boxes there. So it shows up something like this: 1: Archery (+2 bonus on core stats), Second Wind 2: Action Surge 3: ... 4: ... This allows you to see the choices made in one place and you can make notes of it there. If you really wanted to you could add it to the class section and attach it to ranged attack rolls, but then you need to manually add it in rather than it giving the full AC value hit.

Kevin said: If you really wanted to you could add it to the class section and attach it to ranged attack rolls, but then you need to manually add it in rather than it giving the full AC value hit. Yeah I already tried that, but although easier to track where the +2 came from, it felt clumsy considering how often the value should be added.

A reasonable suggestion to propose may be to have a simple text box below the bonuses section that allows you to put a line or two in regarding where bonuses come from to help with tracking these bonuses.

There has been a lot of discussion around the bonus section recently. It was originally intended to replace the constant popups from roll queries where you would have to manually enter the bonus on every roll. I think that this is a better solution but I can see where it needs a bit more refinement...i'll have a think about this and a semi-related request regarding temp stat scores since the screen real estate they share is pretty close together and the discussions around these have given me a few thoughts about possibly accomplishing this in a way that would prove useful (I have in the past resisted requests for temp stat tracking because of how clunky it is to implement but there is perhaps a solution beginning to form in my head thats related to the current bonus/penalty fields

Gediablo said: Is there a smarter way to add the +2 to hit modifiers from e.g. Fighting Style: Archer to the D&D 5e character sheet than adding it as a modifier of 2 under Bonuses/Penalties under Core Stats? On the class action section, add one to ranged attacks that says "Fightingstyle: Archery, +2 to hit (already applied)" it will trigger on all ranged attacks, and be a reminder that the bonus from "Global Bonuses and Penalties" has been applied, and it will go for all ranged attacks due to the class action. Edit: this is how i appy Hunters Mark damage and Colosuss Slayer damage, by having them tied to the ranger's melee / ranged attacks and saying : [[1d6]] Hunter's mark (On crit [[1d6]]) or [[1d8]] Col. Slayer (On crit [[1d8]]) hey actoba, i was goofing with my players and NPC's one of them has the +1 ac fightingstyle... this got me thinking, what are the chances you can make a "AC related ability" to the class section "display on roll type"... something like: @{Selected|ac} returns the ac value of the character... @{Selected|ac_classaction} could return what is inside a class action with a "On AC check" selected, a way to add something like "damage resistance: Fire" for a dragonborn. so that if a players custom macro referenced a targets @{target|ac} and @{target|ac_classaction}... it would return: vs AC 17 Damage Resistances: Fire (Dragonborn) or Barbarian: vs AC 16 Damage Resistances: Piercing, Bludgeoning, Slashing when enraged. your setup for class actions, is VERY flexible as it is but nothing ever references a characters defenses that i have noticed.

I put the +1 AC fighting style into the armor section.

I missed the response to this thread a couple of days ago, apologies. The intent is that the armour section is used to record the +1 bonus to AC from the fighting style as H suggests. There is no reference to defenses in any of the macros because there is only 1 defense in 5e and thats AC...the problem is that AC can be different depending on the context and class. That's why there is a split in the armour table and 2 different ac values tracked by the sheet (for players anyway). You are free to use these in your own macros but as they are both autocalculated you should only use them as part of a roll. There should already be details on the wiki about the AC fields.

H said: I put the +1 AC fighting style into the armor section. that is a no brainer really, i think we all do it, what i was asking... is can we get some way to tie a class action to an AC reference, i am willing to bet a lot of people build macros that go something like: [[1d20+modz ]] | [[1d20+modz ]] vs AC [[@{target|ac}]] i would like to find a way to make the output of something like that there macro, to be looking like: 18 | 23 vs AC 15 Damage Resistances: Fire, (Piercing, Bludgeoning, Slashing when raging). For mah dragonborn berserker... so when Joe Schmo player tries to bop my dragonborn he goes "well that didnt work very well, damn hes gunna chew my face off now isnt he?" really there are enough spells, effects, and features that add resistances that i believe a class action tie in is warranted. and imagine the splat books coming from WotC... Elemental Evil already adds elemental absorption abilities and spell effects. whats coming next?

Now that we have the roll template system in place there are quite a few things that we can do now that were not possible before. To achieve some of these things though we need the data in a more usable format and that requires some thought and planning to ensure there is the minimal impact on existing sheets. For example, previously the "best" solution might have been to record data in a large text areas since there wasnt a mechanism for using all or parts of it intelligently....that has changed and the class action options are the first step in that direction. AC is a little tricky though as it's application and usage is a little tricky. For example - For NPC's/bad guys they typically only have a single AC value but whether you choose to disclose that to players and/or allow them to use the "target" features is up for debate. For players they already have 2 different AC values and which one you apply depends entirely on the class of the player and the situation/context they find themselves in. Some barbarians might want to wear armour and use their armoured AC value (even if it's lower) because it fits the flavour of their character or perhaps the armour is magical and provides some additional benefit, the paladin is ambushed overnight and has to fight without their armour, etc... These make it difficult to get to a single AC value (for players at least) that can be used. There are also issue with using target and whether you want to expose that data (and likely the rest of the bad guy stats/sheet to players. Again im sure that varies from GM to GM and group to group. I've also made it no secret that I'm not a fan of the target option as it's personally a step too far automation wise and i've found makes players a little less engaged.....of course your opinion may vary. There are of course options like always taking the highest (armoured or un-armoured)) AC regardless but that would mean the sheet would impose a specific (and custom) ruleset on groups and i'm keen to avoid that. Resistances, and some other traits/features, could certainly do with some reconsideration in light of the options roll templates bring and are pretty much all on the todo list

we cant really stop players from referencing AC values of either NPC or Player sheets since its an Attribute they can call with @{target|ac} and @{target|npc_ac} other than setting them to 0 zero on the sheets. but its good to know resistances/immunities are in the works.

To me, automation is a script that automatically applies damage when the macro thinks it has hit, or something of that nature. As a GM and player, I firmly believe in being able to add targeting information to macros; it gets really tiring having to tell a GM repeatedly which thing I'm hitting, and as a GM I like having all the information about the attack included in the macro. (A pet peeve is a herd of tokens all named the same thing with nothing to distinguish them, leading to multiple rounds of pinging the map as we play "Which thing did you attack?") In the 4e game I run, I do all the powercard macros for everyone's powers/abilities/whathaveyou and I include the AC/defenses in the macro because I have better things to do with my time than flip through reference materials to find that information in the middle of battle. (I've compensated for that by making a large number of skills to be blind rolls, the PC doesn't see the die roll.) As to what should be included by default... in a perfect world, it would be toggle-able, but not every 5e GM uses tokens (choosing theater of the mind), so @{target} is useless in that case, requiring instead the use of a roll query to designate the targets for macros. So there's no safe default to rely on, which means the current use-case of non-by-default and allowing users to modify the macros to be the way they like is the best case scenario :>

ill go one even better Gen... i put gender identifiers on all my players and monsters, so they can even reference the gender to build spiffy emotes for their macros (yup mine include AC in attack rolls too, for all the same reasons, speed of play) i doo suffer from the "mass of clone tokens" and "guess what target i hit, ping it for a prize" see i have the spiffy emotes referencing: @{target|token_pre} a prefix for the player, npc, or creature... like "lord, lady, sir, the, a, an" @{target|token_name} its name @{target|token_title} , The Destroyer (of little gnomish toes!) a tittle they might have earned... @{target|gen1} gender identifiers.... "his her its" @{target|gen2} {him her it} @{target|gen3} {he she it} so altering the token name is out of it for me ><..... my workaround is to give them colored dots on their token... "i hit pink ranger" "i blowedup blue ninja".... red color is exclusive to being injured (i dont show HP bars to players on NPC's n monsters)

Actoba said: For players they already have 2 different AC values and which one you apply depends entirely on the class of the player and the situation/context they find themselves in. Some barbarians might want to wear armour and use their armoured AC value (even if it's lower) because it fits the flavour of their character or perhaps the armour is magical and provides some additional benefit, the paladin is ambushed overnight and has to fight without their armour, etc... These make it difficult to get to a single AC value (for players at least) that can be used. There are also issue with using target and whether you want to expose that data (and likely the rest of the bad guy stats/sheet to players. Again im sure that varies from GM to GM and group to group. I've also made it no secret that I'm not a fan of the target option as it's personally a step too far automation wise and i've found makes players a little less engaged.....of course your opinion may vary. There are of course options like always taking the highest (armoured or un-armoured)) AC regardless but that would mean the sheet would impose a specific (and custom) ruleset on groups and i'm keen to avoid that. I don't see the debate here. On my sheet I automatically calculate ac based on the higher of armored or unarmored ac. If a player doesn't want to or can't wear his armor they can simply uncheck it from being worn. How does taking the highest impose a specific ruleset?

GenKitty said: As to what should be included by default... in a perfect world, it would be toggle-able, but not every 5e GM uses tokens (choosing theater of the mind), so @{target} is useless in that case, requiring instead the use of a roll query to designate the targets for macros. I share this opinion and it was the motivating factor to make my own sheet that will allow others to configure how they want to play. I'm not interested in targeting either, but my opinion shouldn't prevent it being an option for others. Otherwise if players want customization they have to ignore certain parts of the sheet and use their own macros. Not the best option imo

Mark, as we've previously discussed, at great and very painful length, it's pretty clear we dont see eye to eye on a fair number of things. I will, once more, strongly refute the direct accusation you made to me previously as well as your comments above in which you appear to not so subtly accuse me once more. I have not, in any way shape or form, prevented any player/GM/group from playing 5e in whatever way they see fit! If anyone does feel like I have dictated a certain playstyle to them then by all means let me know! Your continued suggestions that I am somehow dictating the ruleset or style of play for 5e groups due to the decisions I make over the direction of the sheet are completely without merit or justification. I wish you all the best in taking the sheet in the direction you wish to go with it and as I have said before I am sure you will find a playerbase that is interested in (and desires) the changes you plan to make ---- Obviously my opinion on things isnt going to match everyone elses and there are plenty of options for those that want to go in a different direction than I choose to....from using the fields and functions on the sheet differently (ie. by adding roll queries for things like casting level or target), to setting up their own macros/token actions optionally using the fields that the sheet provides, to using parts of the sheet and customising it in a major or minor way. I think i've always been pretty clear that people could go and grab the code and do whatever they like with it and many many have both now and in the past. The sheet already provides support (either directly or indirectly) for rules or options I dont use but it does so in a way, as Genkitty has alluded to in the targeting example, by staying as close to a "core" or "default" setup as possible whilst leaving room for people to customise as they wish. That way anyone new or unfamiliar with the system or even roll20 can get a much easier start since what the sheet provides them should match up largely to what their expectations would be after reviewing the basic rules or the roll20 help documentation/videos. In the case of the AC debate specifically (auto taking the highest) the difference is essentially between providing one option and allowing people to customise/enhance/change that based on their own needs, or auto including a customisation/change/enhancement and asking players to use a workaround if they do not want to use it. To be clear, I can see why for many players something like that is desirable and useful. But it is a customisation based on a decision taken by the sheet author that means users have to subtly adjust to that decision...which might be fine for those that desire it but less so for those that do not want it.

Mark said: Otherwise if players want customization they have to ignore certain parts of the sheet and use their own macros. Not the best option imo I disagree. Actoba's sheet works well as a default that is 'good enough' for the masses, but still reasonably easy to customize for a specific GM's needs/desires. The whole point of customizing is taking something and making it your own, with your own work to make it exactly the way you like it. Learning how to customize things is a valuable tool in a GM's skillset.

GenKitty said: The whole point of customizing is taking something and making it your own, with your own work to make it exactly the way you like it. Learning how to customize things is a valuable tool in a GM's skillset. +1 internets!

Actoba said: Mark, as we've previously discussed, at great and very painful length, it's pretty clear we dont see eye to eye on a fair number of things. I did not intend to accuse you here. I was sharing my opinion on the topic. I think it's a great thing to allow users to customize the sheet to their needs within the sheet. You do not. We've had our debate, no need to have it here. Actoba said: In the case of the AC debate specifically (auto taking the highest) the difference is essentially between providing one option and allowing people to customise/enhance/change that based on their own needs, or auto including a customisation/change/enhancement and asking players to use a workaround if they do not want to use it. I don't understand this. You have 4 variables: attr_AC: @{attr_AC_calc} attr_AC_no_armour: @{AC_no_armour_calc} attr_AC_calc: Equal to the total of all amors. attr_AC_no_armour_calc: Equal to 10+dex+class stuff+unarmored armors Effectively 2: Armored and unarmored. When I setup a token to use attr_AC on bar 1 for example and then that player takes off his armor I have change bar 1 to now be attr_AC_no_armour . Under that system it requires a work around. If you instead took the higher of the 2 it would auto-calculate the higher of attr_AC or attr_AC_no_armour . Then you can set bar 1 to the greater of the two and it would automatically work as long as the player adjusts their sheet. People could still use those other variables directly if they really wanted to, but I don't see the use case for such. Unless I have missed something here and it's intended to be used differently than I have.. GenKitty said: Mark said: Otherwise if players want customization they have to ignore certain parts of the sheet and use their own macros. Not the best option imo I disagree. If a GM wants to customize weapon rolls for instance then the players can't use the weapon macros in the sheet. They have to use their own macros and ignore the ones on the sheet, right? GM's being able to customize is great, but not all GMs have mentor nor the technical mindset/desire to make the changes.

Again, you are not representing my position accurately, I am in no way not allowing users to customise the sheet for their own needs. I just didnt agree with some of the decisions and suggestions you had or the direction you wanted to go in thats all. I would argue that the very fact that you can do this demonstrates the flexibility and options open to those that do not agree with anything the sheet currently does. On the AC issue specifically, there are only 2 attributes that were intended for the majority of end user usage. The other two calc ones were added when I revamped the armour setup on the sheet to allow me to add in some intermediate calculations or options in future should they be necessary. It was not intended that these attributes be used in token bars and even if they were, by your own argument which suggests that one or the other would likely always be higher than the other, there would likely be no swapping required. Of course your opinion may, and clearly does, differ.

Mark Said: If a GM wants to customize weapon rolls for instance then the players can't use the weapon macros in the sheet. They have to use their own macros and ignore the ones on the sheet, right? Yes. The base level of customizing is to see what an existing macro does and then make your own copy of it on the attributes&abilities tab. This doesn't require a paid subscription, or even much talent. Just the initiative to want to make changes and the willingness to ask on the forums, "Hey, can you help me out here?"