Larry K. said: My game is still experience tons of bugs with the repeating fields, particularly attacks, shuffling, duplicating, and disappearing. On one player's sheet I deleted all the attacks, closed the sheet, opened it back up, created 6 attacks, left the game, came back 20 minutes later and everything is shuffled and there were duplicates. We ended up cancelling tonight's game due to the extreme number of issues we faced. It sounds like you might still be having an issue due to a messed up row. When you add a new row to that sheet (Click "Add", then change something in the new row, then click off of it) does it "jump" up above some existing rows? If so, that's the problem. You need to delete those rows (the ones it "jumped" above) and then everything should work fine. Sorry for the trouble. Phnord Prephect said: So yeah, my group had issues with repeating fields as well. Primarily in attacks, I'm not sure if other fields were used or not or if there were issues. What I found odd was the way the issues presented themselves: I'm using an old version of the Pathfinder sheet, modified by myself (poorly) to utilize an old version of HoneyBadger's Powercards (currently using the new version but built for the old) for all dierolls in-sheet, and using macros to pull info from repeating fields for the attacks (NOT the in-sheet macros (for reasons)). A monster built long ago with multiple attacks works fine; all three-or-whatever repeating attack fields are still working. Characters built in the past, even recent past (but before the update) have any attacks they make work fine, UNLESS the repeating section was built recently (ie tonight). Older attacks work fine; new ones give an error message (looking for 1-9 but finding { or something like that, I'm not gonna look, you know the one.) The one character built tonight had its first (0) repeating attack work fine; subsequent ones gave the same error message as above. I tried deleting the previous working (0) attack, and rebuilding is as a new (3) attack; this did not work, and now all the attacks give the same error. This could well be a personal issue, due to the system I'm using being badly and extensively Frankensteined together, but I was asked to share this data. Hopefully it'll help. If you'd like to see for yourself, let me know and I'll get you an invite. Thanks -Phnord-who-just-played-for-10-hours-anyway! PS: Have noticed no 'shuffling' errors. I see, I think this is a different issue. My guess is that you have macros (either sheet roll buttons or macros/abilities you've made on the characters) that were referencing the repeating rows using the old ID structure. So for example, if you have a repeating section called inventory, you might have a macro that's calling @{repeating_inventory_0_weight}. Where "0" is supposed to mean "the first row". That will still work fine for old rows because they are still using the old 0-based ID system. New rows, though, get IDs like "-ABC123" (so they would be something like @{repeating_inventory_-ABC123_weight}). So those macros are probably breaking on those new rows. What you need to do is put a dollar sign in front of the number in the macro. So instead of @{repeating_inventory_0_weight} it would become @{repeating_inventory_$0_weight}, which now means "use the first row in the repeating section, regardless of its ID." Likewise you can use $1 for the second row, $2 for the third, etc. So basically you probably just need to put those dollar signs in. Note that you can still call a repeating section directly by ID, but now the IDs don't change once a repeating row is created (so for example if you delete the 3rd row, the 4th-8th rows don't change their IDs). This is actually better long-term since it's going to allow us to stuff like allow re-ordering repeating rows. But we had to make that breaking change to the way that macros call repeating rows to enable that. You can also now drag and drop the roll button out of a repeating section directly to the macro quick bar which might eliminate the need to even use those macros, but it's totally up to you. Let me know if that's not what's happening or if you have further questions on that.