[5e Shaped] v2.0.5 New Version! (Reshaped)

I'm personally in favour of having spells on a separate tab. The Core tab is full enough as it is, I prefer tabs to scrolling. Although this is not such a strong preference, Core page would work too for me, I suppose.

I personally prefer having spells on a separate page, as well. I can deal with it on core, but it would be easier for me on a separate page.

I prefer using show all page (entirely because it allows me to interact with a player's entire character sheet without switching what they're seeing) and therefore it doesn't matter, however a spell dedicated page seems best imo.  Perhaps a strawpoll is in order considering how many opinions we have? I'm also of the opinion that the three column look is cramped and that sticking to the paper version while understandable doesn't really make too much sense in the context of a computer. We have a Bio page for all characters something that a paper sheet lacks, which is why I would be in favour of moving the background traits to the character page or at least make them toggleable on the main page.  For many veteran players who don't need the trait system to make reasonable and well roleplayed characters 5e's focus on it isn't as useful.

Is it possible to have A) the details and the drag/drop from SRD on the separate spell page, B) a clickable summary on core for cantrips, prepared, ritual, or maybe favorites (with some combination of level, casting time [1a, 1b, 1r, 1h, 10m], concentration [C], DCxx, spell attack bonus, school [Div, Conj, Abjur, Ench, etc.], range [10f, Tch, Self, etc] -- whatever you guys like the best/fits), and C) when you press the expand button on core have it jump to the spell page details?

Nope, this is a very limited html and css app in terms of UI. JavaScript has very little access to ui.

Running the newest 2.0.7 The performance with spells now has greatly improved, total field count is down to 58-60% of what it was after I entered a new sheet with 40 spells, and the performance increase really stands out. Opening sheet reduced ~1300ms, expanding/collapsing spells reduced ~800ms, expanding/collapsing weapons reduced ~300ms, and adding a new spell lag nearly halfed (reduced by ~3300ms). I have a feeling that people may prefer the spell page as a few of my players mentioned it as it seems to be somewhat reflected here. I am liking the current sheet, though I do find myself "cheating" a bit by switching to low spell amount filters to go to equipment as I do like the current equipment middle position and size, but all together I am liking it. Things of Note - The spell bonuses (from the old spell tab, similar to bonuses for attacks, melee, and ranged) are not seen in settings. That section may have to be added again. Minor Thoughts - I am finding that with resources, I would be adding a extra value to the heal amount that is not stat based, but I don't like to query it if I can reference a value. While I can add this in the first field with dice (such as second wind doing 1d10+[reference to fighter level]), I was thinking having a extra bonus field like spells do for heal would work and keep things consistent. Though this may be different than intended for the resources section as I mentioned before, something like Cleric of Light channel divinity aoe damage I would use resources for the save but I realize the intention would be just "Channel Divinity 1/1" after you clarified intent. Outside that, I can only find small things that are more "I prefer this way" rather than it being an issue. Minor things like I still kinda wish the header section was clickable (such as experience) and I personally prefer no space between the numbers and the bars with resources in the macro e/g (5/5) instead of (5 / 5). However, those come down to personal taste that will never satisfy everyone. Other than the missing spell bonus and the small idea for resources heal section, I can't find anything else that is standing out at the moment. Every time I think the sheet is looking great, you find a way to make it even better with things I would have never thought of. Great work.

I would prefer the spells on their own page but could live with on the core sheet if that truly is the best optimization.

I have set up the latest version 2.0.7 and can confirm that the lag is way better. My wizard has around 40 spells and previously could barely add new spells, but I can now use the sheet normally. I would personally prefer having spells on a separate page, but I do not mind them being on the Core page too much. Just some minor issues that I noticed: - You can only add new spells if you have no filters enabled (because the new spell does not fit the filter criteria). You can simply switch off all filters to add spells, but given that the list on the Core page can get quite long, it could get quite cumbersome. - I believe you mentioned that you are currently not parsing weapon properties, but just wanted to point out that reach and range are not added automatically when dragging and dropping equipment. Also, when you add a versatile weapon, the 2H damage is added as a second damage field (which I am personally fine with, though may be confusing for some) but this damage does not get the mod (e.g. Str) or type (e.g. slashing). Thanks again for all your great work Kryx!

Just fyi, Riley just posted about an update on Dev for character sheets that improved performance on a character sheet with 12,000 plus attributes and noticed at least a four-fold improvement.

Is this compatible with the drag and drop features of the SRD?

HoneyBadger said: Just fyi, Riley just posted about an update on Dev for character sheets that improved performance on a character sheet with 12,000 plus attributes and noticed at least a four-fold improvement. Link:&nbsp; <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2939674/quick-de" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2939674/quick-de</a>... Fantastic news. Will respond to the other stuff shortly.

@Vanakoji: Spell bonuses are on settings. It's the second row labelled "Spellcasting" Vanakoji said: I do find myself "cheating" a bit by switching to low spell amount filters to go to equipment as I do like the current equipment middle position and size, but all together I am liking it. As mentioned above it is always an option to move equipment to the right column. Vanakoji said: Minor Thoughts - I am finding that with resources, I would be adding a extra value to the heal amount that is not stat based, but I don't like to query it if I can reference a value. While I can add this in the first field with dice (such as second wind doing 1d10+[reference to fighter level]), I was thinking having a extra bonus field like spells do for heal would work and keep things consistent. Though this may be different than intended for the resources section as I mentioned before, something like Cleric of Light channel divinity aoe damage I would use resources for the save but I realize the intention would be just "Channel Divinity 1/1" after you clarified intent. I used "1d10 + @{repeating_class_-K9vFQAa2I11F9HxHHDS_level}" for my fighter in that field. I too thought about a bonus field, but a&nbsp;bonus field would typically be numeric (like they are on attacks and spells). I think I may just widen that field a bit (only a few pixels as there isn't so much room to start with). The line between resources and attacks is a bit weird and it's unfortunate that some have to be in both attacks and resources, but I don't think there is a better solution besides duplicating the behavior of attacks into resources or adding an use/max and recharge to attacks. Something to think about as I work on NPCs. Let me know your thoughts. Vanakoji said: Outside that, I can only find small things that are more "I prefer this way" rather than it being an issue. Minor things like I still kinda wish the header section was clickable (such as experience) and I personally prefer no space between the numbers and the bars with resources in the macro e/g (5/5) instead of (5 / 5). However, those come down to personal taste that will never satisfy everyone. Indeed several things will fall down to preference. I do some of this UI design stuff at work so for the most part it's pretty good (but improving with feedback!) I can make the header items clickable and get rid of the spacing. Vanakoji said: Other than the missing spell bonus and the small idea for resources heal section, I can't find anything else that is standing out at the moment. Every time I think the sheet is looking great, you find a way to make it even better with things I would have never thought of. Great work. Thanks for all the continued feedback and I'm glad you're still liking it. :) Mark F. said: - You can only add new spells if you have no filters enabled (because the new spell does not fit the filter criteria). You can simply switch off all filters to add spells, but given that the list on the Core page can get quite long, it could get quite cumbersome. As mentioned above I don't think I can fix this. Even if I could the spell would then disappear after importing and that would be confusing for users. Mark F. said: - I believe you mentioned that you are currently not parsing weapon properties, but just wanted to point out that reach and range are not added automatically when dragging and dropping equipment. Also, when you add a versatile weapon, the 2H damage is added as a second damage field (which I am personally fine with, though may be confusing for some) but this damage does not get the mod (e.g. Str) or type (e.g. slashing). Thanks again for all your great work Kryx! Ah, true. Items do have the "Reach" property which I can use to parse "10 ft" from. Or I'll set it to 5ft if it doesn't have reach and isn't ranged. I will also import "Range" for ranged weapons. For Versatile weapons I would not recommend using Secondary Damage. I would recommend splitting them into 2 different weapons. Reason being that damage bonuses on the settings page only apply to the primary Damage (for other cases like flaming properties). I can check versatile and then copy over the damage ability and damage type, but I would not recommend using secondary if you use bonuses at all. James R. said: Is this compatible with the drag and drop features of the SRD? The sheet currently is able to drag&drop Spells, Armor, Weapons, Equipment. There is some post processing to make things automatically set up like Potion of Healing for example. NPCs are currently being made.

v 2.0.8 Post-process damage ability and damage type for versatile weapons Post-process Range and reach for weapons Made all header items clickable Added the required xp for next level Made features and traits bigger Spell page has been removed to get rid of duplication. Still a debate on where this goes, but it's fairly easy to revert if needed.&nbsp;(they are on the core page right now) Clarified armor types again Started work on NPCs (no where near complete. The aim is to look like&nbsp; <a href="http://marklenser.com/5econverter/" rel="nofollow">http://marklenser.com/5econverter/</a> which looks like the MM). No SVGs in Roll20 makes me sad for my red lines. :( Since I never put up a changelog for 2.0.7: v 2.0.7 BREAKING spell level is now output as friendly level. So "Cantrip" or "3rd-level". Older spells will simply not show a level until something is changed Higher level shows the level the spell was cast at in the roll template Version shown in the sheet instead of date Prevented ghost attacks and spells Hid any spells from levels that the character does not currently have Various small fixes

I too am in favor of taking the spells off the core sheet and only having the Spell Page. Spells are a big enough subject that giving them there own page seems a fair choice.

My skill thing is fixed. Thanks! &nbsp;I know we were talking about cantrips being always prepared. I think you said that there wasn't a better way to do it, but if you do come up with a way, the normal spells need Not Prepared, Always, and Prepared as well and a way to count how many are just "prepared" since cantrips and domain spells don't count against the total. Oh, maybe we just have not prepared and prepared as options, but a "prepared" counter somewhere an a check box that makes a spell not add in to the counter? If that's easier programmatically, it would probably fulfill the same need.

How do you roll initiative from the sheet? When I click a character's token and then click the initiative box on the sheet, it just adds the bonus, it doesn't roll.

If you create a new spell and leave the action as the pre-filled 1 action, it doesn't fill in the gray bar.

Robert D. said: How do you roll initiative from the sheet? When I click a character's token and then click the initiative box on the sheet, it just adds the bonus, it doesn't roll. I would check to see if it is the same with other sheets (other characters)/a new sheet (create new character, maybe make sure using the most recent github version) and generally try to reproduce the issue of not rolling as I select the token, click the box and it works fine for me. I cannot reproduce that issue. EDIT If you create a new spell and leave the action as the pre-filled 1 action, it doesn't fill in the gray bar. I believe the 1 action is not there, just example place holder text nothing is actually filled in that text box.

That is a placeholder value in html (a hint, really), not a real value. Notice that it is light gray. I cannot reproduce the initiative issue either. If it continues please provide a reproduction path.

Kryx said: That is a placeholder value in html (a hint, really), not a real value. Notice that it is light gray. I cannot reproduce the initiative issue either. If it continues please provide a reproduction path. When I first created a new character, the initiative didn't roll for me either. I think there was no initial value set for&nbsp;initiative_roll. I had to change the Initative setting in the Settings tab to "Roll Two Rolls" and then back to "Roll One Roll" before it worked for me.

The initiative thing only happens when the Dex is set to 10. (maybe 11, didn't test). If I up it to 12 it works. Putting it back to 10 and it just always sets the initiative to 0. If you can't reproduce off that, I'll test some more, but I'm just walking out the door. :) It looks like it's rolling (I've had a green result saying I rolled a 20), it just puts a 0 out as the result. Since 0 is my initiative, I thought I was just doing something wrong on my end. :)

Ok, off that steps to reproduce. (using 2.0.7 which is latest from github) Create new character Grab token Set token to represent character select token click&nbsp;initiative on the sheet it represents Happens with 10 or 11 dex Happens regardless of rolling one die/two/or query Seems to be when using a token, the token represents the character, and dex is 10-11. Initiative&nbsp;bonus does not change this.

Thanks! I was at the doctors and couldn't reproduce. I'll blow the dust off my class levels in "Tester" before my next post. :)

Robert D. said: The initiative thing only happens when the Dex is set to 10. (maybe 11, didn't test). If I up it to 12 it works. Putting it back to 10 and it just always sets the initiative to 0. If you can't reproduce off that, I'll test some more, but I'm just walking out the door. :) It looks like it's rolling (I've had a green result saying I rolled a 20), it just puts a 0 out as the result. Since 0 is my initiative, I thought I was just doing something wrong on my end. :) I am seeing the same thing. &nbsp;If the Dex is 10 or 11, when rolling initiative it displays a 0 as the result. &nbsp;The tooltip for the 0 result is&nbsp;Rolling d20 + + 0 = (3)++0. &nbsp;This is with sheet version 2.0.7. &nbsp;If I move the Dex up to 12 or more then it worked fine. &nbsp; It appears that when the dex modifier is 0, the attribute&nbsp;initiative_formula is set to blank and causes the initiative calculation to fail and display 0. &nbsp;When I manually set the initiative_formula to 0[dex], the Initiative function worked correctly.

Initiative issue will be fixed in the next build.

Two minor things (using 2.0.7) - The second&nbsp;parenthesis on the d12 hit dice roll is missing. Output with HD is "Hit Dice (d12" instead of "Hit Dice (d12)" - Very minor issue that will not come up in 95% of cases. Total GP value is not set at the start, even as little as putting the cursor in the other money fields and clicking off without doing anything will then set it to 0 it the total gold value field though.

Fixed both. They will be on the next release. It doesn't affect these issues, but for the future please ensure you're on the latest version (or at least have tested the issue on the latest) to prevent any confusion.

Ya, if I do any new testing I always grab the newest version from github, and for older testing (game been open for a long time, getting back to testing) before I post I always see if there is a new version as well to make sure. Last version on guthub was 20-22 hours ago, not sure if that is suppose to be 2.0.8 as changelog was posted but don't see it there for me.

Ah, that's my mistake. I forgot to bump the version on the actual sheet. Sorry for my admonishment. :P

No problem, wasn't sure if it was 2.0.8 or not as some things from the changelog were in, others not. Doesn't seem like it had clickable header items, weapons dealing with range/reach, or versatile weapons damage stat/type, but had the feature/traits bigger, removed spell page and xp for next level.&nbsp; So I had no idea what version it was and just used the sheet version number.

I forgot to push last night. That's why this happened. :( It'll be there tonight.

Hey, A thought - probably not a welcome one at this stage, but I thought I'd throw it out there: I think I get what you're trying to achieve with the new repeating skills, but I'm a bit concerned about how many things it prevents, and the cost to potential future usefulness. It seems like with the new sheet, there's really no nice way to refer to individual skills from macros/API. You've already mentioned that this is causing a few headaches with things like the attachers and passive perception. I've just been playing around with Matt's door script, and noticed that it's looking for a target attribute to do lockpicking/trap detection checks against. I probably wouldn't use the functionality myself, but it occurs to me that it's just one instance of a more general use case - being able to have API scripts and macros refer to skills in a generic fashion. Do you think there might be a way to get some sort of stable naming scheme for the skills with the current approach? It seems a shame to make skills effectively inaccessible to other API scripts without having to hack in a custom translation layer that looks up the appropriate repeating field... but I guess it's rather late in the day to be making this observation so I guess you can just ignore me :-) Cheers, Lucian

Few quick notes after some initial tests with recent version. Sorcerer/Warlock levels. The tooltip (the black question mark in the top right) of the sorcery points/warlock slots causes a&nbsp;horizontal&nbsp;scroll bar as the tooltip is creating additional width to the tab. The default ability tooltip however displays to the left on mouse over so it does not cause the same issue. Nice to have: Use of commas for improved readability on xp. So instead of 100000, it would show 100,000 Small time quality of life: If a&nbsp;currency&nbsp;field is left black (such as&nbsp;deleting&nbsp;the current value to nothing), during the update time set it to 0 so there is not a blank field.&nbsp;

@Oz: Fixed sorc/warlock. It is on github right now. XP is a number and therefore won't have commas. There is actually a request on the OGL sheet to ensure that xp is numeric for API purposes. That outweighs viewing. @Lucian: Skills are accessible - you just need to know the ID. That is the same behavior as attacks and spells. To not have this the sheet would have to not use repeating fields for anything. No really an option.

Kryx said: @Lucian: Skills are accessible - you just need to know the ID. That is the same behavior as attacks and spells. To not have this the sheet would have to not use repeating fields for anything. No really an option. Yeah, I understand that they are accessible, but e.g. I can't make a generic macro that references a stealth skill value without hand-crafting it for every character that I want to use it for. Furthermore, if people write API scripts that expect to able to reference the value of a skill generically (as Matt's door script does for lock picking/trap finding), those aren't going to be able to work with the new skills. I don't buy the argument that this implies repeating fields wouldn't be usable anywhere. My point was just that specific skills (esp. perception and stealth) are a very fundamental part of the game shared by every character and perhaps ought to be generically reference-able in the same way that e.g. a dex score is. I think that's a very different situation to e.g. equipment, individual class abilities or spells. One of the things that makes Roll20 so cool is that it's extensible and you can bolt on different features from different authors to add as much functionality as you like. The fact that skills can't be referenced in a generic way means that the options for doing this with anything that involves skills are going to be quite limited with the shaped sheet. I'm not sure that the (fairly uncommon, I would imagine) use case of entirely redefining the skill list really justifies that loss of functionality for me. Anyway, I've made my point, take what you will from it, I won't say any more about it now - I don't want to seem ungrateful for all the amazing work you've put in on this! Cheers, Lucian &nbsp;

I'm really enjoying these new sheets. They're incredibly fast, and the ability to drag and drop spells is amazing. I have two outstanding issues which I want to report: 1. The prepared spells filter does not seem to work. I have 13 spells, 6 of them are prepared, toggling that filter does nothing. 2. I don't think you can do this, but it would be amazing if spells were sorted alphabetically. &nbsp;I think this remains an issue with roll20's repeating sections code.

Experience Points Issue: Using 2.0.9 I get this error when clicking the Experience Header: "SyntaxError: Expected "(", ".", "[", "abs(", "ceil(", "d", "floor(", "round(", "t", "{", [ |\t], [+|\-] or [0-9] but end of input found." Now I noticed that the experience is displayed on the Core tab as 118800/________. &nbsp;The field to the right, there's no way of entering anything into it. I know you mentioned that you added something to show progression in experience points. &nbsp;So in this case, will we be able to set the next levels amount of experience to display&nbsp;118800/120000?

Kaelev said: Experience Points Issue: Using 2.0.9 I get this error when clicking the Experience Header: "SyntaxError: Expected "(", ".", "[", "abs(", "ceil(", "d", "floor(", "round(", "t", "{", [ |\t], [+|\-] or [0-9] but end of input found." Now I noticed that the experience is displayed on the Core tab as 118800/________. &nbsp;The field to the right, there's no way of entering anything into it. I know you mentioned that you added something to show progression in experience points. &nbsp;So in this case, will we be able to set the next levels amount of experience to display&nbsp;118800/120000? If you delete and re-add a class level row on the character tab that field will populate automatically. I guess this should never normally be a problem for all characters created from now on, it's just because the sheet is changing so much atm... Lucian

Lucian H. said: Kaelev said: Experience Points Issue: Using 2.0.9 I get this error when clicking the Experience Header: "SyntaxError: Expected "(", ".", "[", "abs(", "ceil(", "d", "floor(", "round(", "t", "{", [ |\t], [+|\-] or [0-9] but end of input found." Now I noticed that the experience is displayed on the Core tab as 118800/________. &nbsp;The field to the right, there's no way of entering anything into it. I know you mentioned that you added something to show progression in experience points. &nbsp;So in this case, will we be able to set the next levels amount of experience to display&nbsp;118800/120000? If you delete and re-add a class level row on the character tab that field will populate automatically. I guess this should never normally be a problem for all characters created from now on, it's just because the sheet is changing so much atm... Lucian Yup! I was in the reshaped campaign and Alzam mentioned it was tied in with the number of levels. &nbsp;So I thought just changing the level would fix it, but it didn't. So I just got rid of the classes and it worked. &nbsp;Should have asked in game first before posting. &nbsp;:P

Lucian H. said: Kryx said: @Lucian: Skills are accessible - you just need to know the ID. That is the same behavior as attacks and spells. To not have this the sheet would have to not use repeating fields for anything. No really an option. Yeah, I understand that they are accessible, but e.g. I can't make a generic macro that references a stealth skill value without hand-crafting it for every character that I want to use it for. Furthermore, if people write API scripts that expect to able to reference the value of a skill generically (as Matt's door script does for lock picking/trap finding), those aren't going to be able to work with the new skills. I don't buy the argument that this implies repeating fields wouldn't be usable anywhere. My point was just that specific skills (esp. perception and stealth) are a very fundamental part of the game shared by every character and perhaps ought to be generically reference-able in the same way that e.g. a dex score is. I think that's a very different situation to e.g. equipment, individual class abilities or spells. One of the things that makes Roll20 so cool is that it's extensible and you can bolt on different features from different authors to add as much functionality as you like. The fact that skills can't be referenced in a generic way means that the options for doing this with anything that involves skills are going to be quite limited with the shaped sheet. I'm not sure that the (fairly uncommon, I would imagine) use case of entirely redefining the skill list really justifies that loss of functionality for me. Anyway, I've made my point, take what you will from it, I won't say any more about it now - I don't want to seem ungrateful for all the amazing work you've put in on this! Cheers, Lucian &nbsp; It could theoretically be possible to have the standard 5e skills be a non-repeating section, with a repeating section added to the bottom of it, for extra skills. This would allow generic access to skills across campaigns and characters, and still allow users to add their own custom skills.

alexander h. said: It could theoretically be possible to have the standard 5e skills be a non-repeating section, with a repeating section added to the bottom of it, for extra skills. This would allow generic access to skills across campaigns and characters, and still allow users to add their own custom skills. Yeah, that would probably be my preference, personally. But I guess the code isn't as neat and it prevents you from completely redefining the skill list, if you really feel the need to do that.

Lucian H. said: One of the things that makes Roll20 so cool is that it's extensible and you can bolt on different features from different authors to add as much functionality as you like. The fact that skills can't be referenced in a generic way means that the options for doing this with anything that involves skills are going to be quite limited with the shaped sheet. I'm not sure that the (fairly uncommon, I would imagine) use case of entirely redefining the skill list really justifies that loss of functionality for me. If the api is a concern it can easily be solved with js by looping through the skills and searching for one by name. It will cause people to modify scripts, but it's entirely possible. A player could also map "perception" as an attribute on their sheet (3rd tab) and reference the main skill to avoid any kind of API tinkering (example: perception set to @{repeating_skill_-kf343434fvds_total} ). As I said before I will be providing information how to grab this information in the future. It could also be possible for the sheet to create those fields by name that reference that row for classes and skills, but that would add more fields and is a nice to have enhancement that isn't crucial at this time. The costs of repeating sections are all the same - arcane syntax to find the name.&nbsp;The benefits outweigh the costs. Providing the default list of skills is not sufficient as skills are one of the most common area to homebrew. @DamnedMage: Prepared seems to have broken on moving spells back to the spells page. I will fix it. Spells cannot be sorted by me at all. The good news is that roll20 mentioned allowing repeating items to be moved in a coming update. The sheet worked great in my games tonight. No issues except no NPCs or updated scripts.

So I have the original sheet in most of my games. I can't remember what you call it, you always refer to it be the author's name, but it's called 5th Edition (Community Contributed) in drop down. I have more than a hundred, maybe a few hundred monsters and NPCs in my campaigns and vault using that sheet. You said once that finding a way to transfer those monsters to the new reshaped sheet would take a lot of work, but that if enough people needed it, you'd consider it. Now that you're just about up to working on the NPC sheet, I thought I'd start a conversation. How hard WOULD that be, and how would it work when you were done? I don't want you to put a lot of work into it if the method we'd use at the end would be almost as hard as re-entering them from scratch. How many people out there have large libraries of monsters and NPCs built, where a significant number aren't in the SRD? If I'm in the minority, I also don't want to take a lot of your time. Thanks.

As someone using your Shaped sheet over connected campaigns right now, thank you so much first off. I really appreciate all the community led efforts here, and this sheet is one of my favorites by far. Echoing the question above, I have a Beastiary built of around 100-120 Characters/NPCs/Monsters currently, and would really hate to leave them all behind. On the other hand, the advantages in this new sheet are phenomenal. I designed my Monsters as Characters using the NPC option. Now, if I need to go in and do some cleanup on each and every sheet to facilitate this, that might be ultimately annoying, but I'm absolutely willing to do so. I just don't want to lose the majority of what I have. So an imperfect import option would still be vastly preferable to nothing at all in my case, as I would likely still retain the basics like HP, AC, Tokens, and character art. I use the Sheet mainly as a database for those other stats, as adding each ability in detail without the SRD would have been even-more ridiculously time consuming. The monsters though are still secondary. The player sheets are what I'm far more concerned about getting right, and also what has me so excited for SRD integration in this upcoming release. So if a full NPC import option isn't going to be on the table, please at least consider a simpler one that allows us to keep the outlines in some form. Thanks so much for your hard work.

Robert D. said: So I have the original sheet in most of my games. I can't remember what you call it, you always refer to it be the author's name, but it's called 5th Edition (Community Contributed) in drop down. I have more than a hundred, maybe a few hundred monsters and NPCs in my campaigns and vault using that sheet. You said once that finding a way to transfer those monsters to the new reshaped sheet would take a lot of work, but that if enough people needed it, you'd consider it. Now that you're just about up to working on the NPC sheet, I thought I'd start a conversation. How hard WOULD that be, and how would it work when you were done? I don't want you to put a lot of work into it if the method we'd use at the end would be almost as hard as re-entering them from scratch. How many people out there have large libraries of monsters and NPCs built, where a significant number aren't in the SRD? If I'm in the minority, I also don't want to take a lot of your time. Thanks. I definitely have a good mix of imported monster's both straight from the MM and homebrew. &nbsp;Unfortuantely for me, I found the monster and spell importer about a month before the release of the SRD, so I had little time to mess with it and bring more in. &nbsp;I'd love foe there to be an import option similar to the API script as the conpendium and SRD do not have all the monsters from all the 5e books like the API does. &nbsp;The cherry on top would be all the missing spells, and other items not included in the SRD.

Kryx said: Still TODO NPC fix import scripts Write conversion script (Though everyone should start over with new sheets if they are experiencing any lag) Conversion scripts are on the TODO. First I need to complete NPCs so I have a place to import monsters and convert monsters to. So the order is NPCs -&gt; Import scripts -&gt; Conversion. Conversion won't take that long. If you want to help please spend the time giving me each field (that has changed name) on the old sheet and mapping it by name to a field on the new sheet. Shaped for example: npc_ac -&gt; ac I need a full list of everything that isn't automatically converted and what field you'd want it in. Once I have that I can add them to the Sheet Workers fairly easily. For me all of my monsters are either SRD or homebrew that I can easily import once I fix those scripts so I won't be converting anything (also for lag reasons). I expect NPCs to take about a week, imports to take about 3 days for functionality (more if I clean it up), and conversion to take about 3 days if I do testing.

Hey, I think maybe when the spells page got put back some of the filtering got broken. Level filtering works but none of the other filters seem to do anything. I'm on the latest code from last night; I tried working out what was wrong but I'm too out of touch with how the sheet works now to piece it together. Cheers, Lucian

Kryx said: @DamnedMage: Prepared seems to have broken on moving spells back to the spells page. I will fix it. See above. It has been fixed locally and will be pushed later tonight.

D'oh. Sorry.