[SW FFG] Official Character Sheet Thread

GM Knowledge Rhino said: Samuel T. said: GM Knowledge Rhino said: Riding Beasts need Survival Skill added to their list The riding beast has a repeating section for extra skills, why would this not work there? Can survival be used as an attack skill? Because then it looks like it is a "custom" skill added rather than a (currently) RAW usage of the creature. The whole point of the API-Compatible Sheet (at least as I understood) was to pre-build in the rule allowed stuff and let people add custom stuff later. While it is likely inappropriate to add all the gear/talents (though I have a Script I made for my group for that), the base rules should be built in. The tiny amount of effort to add 1 skill that is now a part of the Riding Beast's core is not really a big deal to add and does not affect the overall speed of the sheet. Adding it, is showing "As new books and rules come out... the Sheet will support them". Not adding the rules says "Handle the new books on your own, they don't really matter to me at the moment". It is around 20 lines of code per skill if I remember correctly. Now if you do what you suggested a page or so back and create "datasets" for the repeated drop downs for Career/Specializations/Species/etc you will save hundreds of lines of code and this 20, will be meaningless, yet it will provide the Players the correct amount of control over the rules as written in the supplement books.As to "can Survival be used as an attack skill", sort of? It is so the Character can use the Beast to "Push" with the Beast. Basically there are 2 ways to handle the new rules. 1, Add Survival into the Beast's skillset. You may also need to Add Athletics as I missed the action that allows for the Player to goad the Beast into Jumping. 2, Add Athletics and Survival to Beast Abilities. Like Force Powers that have an associated Skill, the Ability can have a text box to explain what it does, and a drop down of Athletics and Survival to be able to do these two maneuvers. I personally would recommend Option 1. I don't have a problem with adding the skill, I was just pushing back a bit at adding something that I thought was covered by the repeating skill section. If you'll notice I did add the species and specializations. As far as the data lists go that change wasn't to save lines it was to remove having both a dropdown and an input box serving the same function. Currently there is not a good way to provide template data for multiple dropdowns. That's just not how html works in the scope of the character sheets.

The up and down arrows are not showing up for me and I can't click and put in a number manually. Plus there doesn't seem to be a GM section for me with the campaign tab etc.. 

Merodax C. said: The up and down arrows are not showing up for me and I can't click and put in a number manually. Plus there doesn't seem to be a GM section for me with the campaign tab etc..  what internet browser do you use and what vision API are you using? Are you using the Roll20 character sheet or the custom one that comes with the API?

I use google chrome and I picked the character sheet from the game options page. I have the dice roller api also running. The version of the sheet is 4.something I'll check and post it.

The GM character sheet is located on a sheet called -DicePool.

Almost ready to release version 6.1.0 of the character sheet. Here are some of the changes coming: Debut of the new suggestions feature. Upon rolling a general skill, or custom skill whose name matches a general skill name, the system will now prompt you for ways to spend the results of your roll. Beneficial results like success, advantage and triumph suggestions will be whispered to both the GM and any players controlling the rolling character. Harmful results like failure (if applicable), threat and despair suggestions will only be whispered to the GM to help cut down on player meta gaming. (Open to the possibility of providing an option for a GM to change this to also output to the controlling players. Added new species and specializations Collapsing sections now respect last state. Fixed bugs in NPC force skills Fixed armor section in stat block for both starships and planetary vehicles Added the skills Survival and Athletics to the Riding Beasts skill list You can test all these changes in the alpha campaign now as well as pulling them into your own sheet by going to the github.

In the current GitHub version; <b>Weapon</b><input name="attr_character-Weapon" value="1" checked="checked" style="width:78px;margin:-13px -20px 0 -62px" class="sheet-toggle sheet-weapon-toggle" type="checkbox" checked="checked"/><span></span> <b>Weapon</b><input name="attr_companion-Weapon" value="1" checked="checked" style="width:78px;margin:-13px -20px 0 -62px" class="sheet-toggle sheet-weapon-toggle" type="checkbox" checked="checked"/><span></span> <b>Weapon</b><input name="attr_npc-Weapon" value="1" checked="checked" style="width:78px;margin:-13px -20px 0 -62px" class="sheet-toggle sheet-weapon-toggle" type="checkbox" checked="checked"/><span></span> All 3 have the checked="checked" listed twice. Also you seem to list the javascript and css as still at version 5.0.0.0 even though they have changed since then. The version of these 2 should match the html (this helps the users of the script/css/html know they are using the right version of the companion files.

Thanks, I always forget to update the versions on the css and javascript. I'll fix the weapons when I get home. 

Version 6.1.0 released

Merodax C. said: The up and down arrows are not showing up for me and I can't click and put in a number manually. Plus there doesn't seem to be a GM section for me with the campaign tab etc..&nbsp; Do you see a sheet called "-DiceRoller"? If not try following the steps outlined here&nbsp; <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/SWRPG-API-Compatible#Getting_Started" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/SWRPG-API-Compatible#Getting_Started</a>

Samuel T. said: Version 6.1.0 released Tested the new suggestion feature, have&nbsp;4 comments; It is amazing. I like how it breaks it down to the specific symbol and only shares about that symbol. I like how easy it would be to edit in new suggestions. Suggestion: Is there/will there be, a way to turn it off (for people that stream games)? For a GM, it seems to double the text, is there a way to not receive the "Player" text as a GM? (or was I just seeing it wrong?) For 1 roll that had Advantages and Success, I got 4 messages. I&nbsp;think the goal would be 1 message, though I know that is tougher to do. At minimum though getting the messages down to only GM messages to the GM&nbsp;would be useful. Future Suggestion: I see you are on the html looking into the Roll Template to augment this, I think that will likely solve the issue of too many messages, by just having the second message be a separate line. If that is the case, ignore this suggestion. Suggestion: Now that you have the tips in the javascript you can save all that room by removing the sheet-tips from the skills section (I checked, it was still there). This is a huge chunk of code that should speed the sheet up some. Suggestion: Within the javascript it has a list of features that each author has contributed. Now that you have added a bunch of features, you may want to add in your list to that. Otherwise (at this point) the section that states your contributions, is empty and seems lonely. =) Additionally (and I am not trying to be annoying) I suggest either updating the date at the same time as the version number, or removing the date altogether. The date feature is beneficial as it shows when it was last updated, but it is another thing you have to remember to update, or it can confuse people.

I'm on mobile and just woke up but I'll address the multiple messages quickly. I found that if the gm controlled the character sheet then they got both the player and gm messages. If the gm isn't explicitly controlling the sheet then get will only get the gm messages.&nbsp; It's a function of how /w characterId works.&nbsp; I don't really know how to pair down who should receive the suggestions. Maybe I could do a combination of an IsGM() check with a list of sheet controllers and do a game of elimination. That's of course proving the sheets have an exposed list of controllers I can access.&nbsp;

The Destiny Point usage section handles sending messages to only GM or Player easy enough. Can't you look at that code and copy how it handled it?

I will look at it, thanks

Suggestion: Is there/will there be, a way to turn it off (for people that stream games)? Disable the feature entirely, for a sheet, for everyone? I'm sure this could be done. Just trying to figure out the scope of what you intended so I can figure out where the configuration options should go.&nbsp;

Well, sometimes with people that stream the game, they may not want the chat filled with just the suggestions, so if they could turn off the suggestions, it would be useful. Additionally for people that just don't need/want the suggestions, being able to turn it off would be appreciated. (I like them, but I am not everyone)

GM Knowledge Rhino said: The Destiny Point usage section handles sending messages to only GM or Player easy enough. Can't you look at that code and copy how it handled it? Okay, I have looked into how the destiny points are handled and it will not help. The reason why the Destiny Point system appears to only send to the GM or the player is simply because of a division of functions. Namely the useLight &nbsp;and useDark . The useLight &nbsp;function is only on player character sheets. This button is only used by players because only players flip light side points. This button triggers "/w CharacterName". The useDark &nbsp;function is only on the GM sheet. This button is only used by GMs because only GMs flip dark side points. This button triggers "/w gm". Just like the problem in my case, if the GM were to be set as edit permissions &nbsp;on a player sheet when useLight is triggered the GM will get the message as well as the players. Solution? As a GM don't be set to edit on character sheets. There's no reason to be because you can already edit any sheet you want without needing special edit permissions. I have looked into options for determining if the roller of the skill is a GM or not but that doesn't really matter because what matters is who has edit permissions on the sheet. There really is no two ways about this. If the GM has edit permissions on the sheet they will get double messages for beneficial suggestions.

Samuel T. said: GM Knowledge Rhino said: The Destiny Point usage section handles sending messages to only GM or Player easy enough. Can't you look at that code and copy how it handled it? Solution? As a GM don't be set to edit on character sheets. There's no reason to be because you can already edit any sheet you want without needing special edit permissions. I am sorry the Destiny solution didn't help. Unfortunately the "don't set to edit" is incorrect as well, as the testing I did was without any sheet set to edit by the GM.

Would you mind recording this or if I joined you in your campaign or a copy of it to try and narrow down what is going on? I have been able to reproduce the behavior if the GM is set to edit / control the sheet. But since you say this isn't the case for you I would like to look at it more in depth to try and figure out what is going on.

Samuel T. said: Would you mind recording this or if I joined you in your campaign or a copy of it to try and narrow down what is going on? I have been able to reproduce the behavior if the GM is set to edit / control the sheet. But since you say this isn't the case for you I would like to look at it more in depth to try and figure out what is going on. Details: I setup a 100% blank campaign and it doubled the response to the GM with the GM not set to edit the character sheet. Suggestion to test/prove this, try setting the script with the message for suggestions to be coming from: Suggestions for GM (or GM Suggest, or whatever identifies it as the message to GMs) rather than System and the message for the Players, Suggestions for Players (Or something that identifies it is the message for Players). A note, I understand why you want to limit the Players seeing the "bad" dice suggestions, but if a NPC rolls against the Players, normally they get to choose the bad stuff (at least that is how all the GM's of this system I know do it).

1. I can confirm that I don't get double messages when the character is viewable by "All Players" and the sheet is editable by "All Players," even when playing as GM. Don't know if that helps. 2. As things currently stand, minion groups with size 7 or more continue to upgrade their checks beyond the natural limit of 5. I believe that the rules prohibit advancing a skill rank beyond 5, and that this same limitations is generally applied to minion groups who gain a "skill rank" for each minion above 1. Thus, a minion group's "skill rank" caps out once you have six minions in the group. Example - A stormtrooper minon group of six or more should roll 3 yellow and 2 green (3 base agility, upgraded five times), regardless of how large the group is. Does everyone agree with me on this interpretation of the minion rule? If so, can this be easily fixed?&nbsp; As always, thanks, Sam, for all the hard work! (Edit: to state the rule a bit more clearly)

GM Knowledge Rhino said: Samuel T. said: Would you mind recording this or if I joined you in your campaign or a copy of it to try and narrow down what is going on? I have been able to reproduce the behavior if the GM is set to edit / control the sheet. But since you say this isn't the case for you I would like to look at it more in depth to try and figure out what is going on. Details: I setup a 100% blank campaign and it doubled the response to the GM with the GM not set to edit the character sheet. Suggestion to test/prove this, try setting the script with the message for suggestions to be coming from: Suggestions for GM (or GM Suggest, or whatever identifies it as the message to GMs) rather than System and the message for the Players, Suggestions for Players (Or something that identifies it is the message for Players). I did do this, on a blank new campaign I don't get the double messages unless I am specifically set to edit permissions for the player sheet. I really don't know what is going screwy on your end but you currently seem to be the only one affected by it. A note, I understand why you want to limit the Players seeing the "bad" dice suggestions, but if a NPC rolls against the Players, normally they get to choose the bad stuff (at least that is how all the GM's of this system I know do it). Difference in play style I suppose, all the GMs that I've personally seen that play SW FFG choose what bad stuff happens not their players. I could change it to be a configuration option I suppose. As it is there is already too much transparency for my taste as far was what the GM can do with the star wars sheet. There are perfectly acceptable reasons why rolling behind GM screens can be useful. The other option is nothing is whispered. Only one result is generated with both the good and bad and placed in the open for everyone to see.

Samuel T. said: GM Knowledge Rhino said: Samuel T. said: Would you mind recording this or if I joined you in your campaign or a copy of it to try and narrow down what is going on? I have been able to reproduce the behavior if the GM is set to edit / control the sheet. But since you say this isn't the case for you I would like to look at it more in depth to try and figure out what is going on. Details: I setup a 100% blank campaign and it doubled the response to the GM with the GM not set to edit the character sheet. Suggestion to test/prove this, try setting the script with the message for suggestions to be coming from: Suggestions for GM (or GM Suggest, or whatever identifies it as the message to GMs) rather than System and the message for the Players, Suggestions for Players (Or something that identifies it is the message for Players). I did do this, on a blank new campaign I don't get the double messages unless I am specifically set to edit permissions for the player sheet. I really don't know what is going screwy on your end but you seem to be the only one affected by it. A note, I understand why you want to limit the Players seeing the "bad" dice suggestions, but if a NPC rolls against the Players, normally they get to choose the bad stuff (at least that is how all the GM's of this system I know do it). Difference in play style I suppose, all the GMs that I've personally seen that play SW FFG choose what bad stuff happens not their players. I could change it to be a configuration option. The other option is nothing is whispered. Only one result is generated with both the good and bad and placed in the open for everyone to see. I have tested via GM Matt's method. If the character is set to no owner, it doubles the text. When set to "All Players" it only sends 1 set. Being that nearly ALL NPCs will have zero owners, my point is still valid as an issue. I tested on 2 campaigns. I tested on my "test" campaign and a brand new campaign and it had the same issue. I also verified I was not just seeing 2 different results (they were the same). So, while I am the only one commenting on this issue, so far you only have 1 saying it works the way you say, as well, so that is still a 50% failure rate. The second method (posting to chat rather than a whisper) may be a better option anyway. Plus there might even be a way to integrate it into the Roll itself with that method.

Yeah I'm beginning to think that just un-hiding it all and integrating it would be the better option. I'm still trying to clean up the output more. I have tested via GM Matt's method. If the character is set to no owner, it doubles the text. When set to "All Players" it only sends 1 set. Being that nearly ALL NPCs will have zero owners, my point is still valid as an issue. I tested on 2 campaigns. I tested on my "test" campaign and a brand new campaign and it had the same issue. I also verified I was not just seeing 2 different results (they were the same). So, while I am the only one commenting on this issue, so far you only have 1 saying it works the way you say, as well, so that is still a 50% failure rate. You had never said before that the sheets had zero owners. I was asking to look at your campaigns to see what was going on but that wasn't happening. I can only debug things if I get the feedback required in order to solve the issue.

Version 6.2.0 release is out I refined the skill suggestions more and integrated them directly into the roll display of the skill. I also setup for easy inclusions of symbols in the suggestion text. Included setup for easy inclusions of symbols in the suggestion text. Including any of the following tokens into a skill suggestion text will cause it to be replaced by the correct code in order to display the symbol on output. $SUCCESS$ $ADVANTAGE$ $TRIUMPH$ $FAILURE$ $THREAT$ $DESPAIR$ This code only runs once when the script is first initialized. This should limit the impact this code has on the overall functionality of the script as &nbsp;a whole. Try it out, have fun. Report issues. The more expansive feedback increases the odds of problems being fixed. Suggestions are always welcome.

GM Matt said: 2. As things currently stand, minion groups with size 7 or more continue to upgrade their checks beyond the natural limit of 5. I believe that the rules prohibit advancing a skill rank beyond 5, and that this same limitations is generally applied to minion groups who gain a "skill rank" for each minion above 1. Thus, a minion group's "skill rank" caps out once you have six minions in the group. Example - A stormtrooper minon group of six or more should roll 3 yellow and 2 green (3 base agility, upgraded five times), regardless of how large the group is. Does everyone agree with me on this interpretation of the minion rule? If so, can this be easily fixed?&nbsp; At the moment this is not an easy fix for just the yellow and green die. I could fix it by limiting how big the minion group can be but that could limit some GMs. When I came across this issue originally I did some searching and some GMs ignore the rule about minion groups having a cap on ranks. So that is why I kept it as is and let the GM decide. Once I turn the skill yellow / green die section into being controlled by sheet-js instead of HTML I will have much greater control over the things like this. Rest assured sections like these will be controlled by the sheet-js in time.

I love the new spending suggestion display. Great job!

GM Knowledge Rhino said: I love the new spending suggestion display. Great job! Thanks!&nbsp;

I don't like the spending suggestion.. it makes the text box in chat to big + there the ? next to the skill that does the same thing... If you can make a check box so GMs or even players can check it on and off, that would be cool.. if not then i don't think i'm going to be installing any more updates for &nbsp;:( (not saying do it or anything.. just for me, that's to much)

Acrisius said: + there the ? next to the skill that does the same thing... The goal is to get rid of that particular set of code because it is wasteful. Being offloaded to the API speeds up the sheet loading. That way more features can be added without hindering play. =)

i understand that but now, with that fix, it sends more info into the chat box and my players (when something going on) use the chat box for emote and talking (main talking is in skype but off hand talk is in chat). Everyone is not going to like everything.. this is just one of those i think the outcome is worst then it was before type deal that's all.. just my input, that's why i ask if there a way to put in a check box so if people don't want it, they don't have to have it

How easy would it be to include a hyperlink in the output of the skill roll that says "suggest uses for symbols" or something like that. Then, if the hyperlink is clicked, then the suggestions appear. Just thinking out loud.

I see a usage for turning on and off, that is fair (heck I stated the request several posts above this). On the other side of the coin, if a roll happens, the focus should be on handling that roll, before any side conversations. So your Players are either rude (by ignoring the roll's importance) or the roll should never have happened. If the roll is important, then having the suggestions should be important right there. If the roll is in the middle of cross-talk why did you not wait for a better time to roll? Anyway, that is more of a GM style thing than anything else. As I said, I agree with a way to turn it off and on. I am pretty sure for a "manual" method to turn it off, you could always cut out the section of the API script that has the roll suggestions defined. From what I can see, if you delete that section, it will return blank information. So you don't have to threaten to stop participating in other function testing, while he looks into how to turn it off and on.

Alright, well this release certainly drummed up a little bit of a discussion. That's good. Release 6.3.0 will have the option of setting the status of the skill suggestions in the script as a temporary measure until I build it into the sheets. Options will be: None: No skill suggestions will be made Whisper: Owning players and GM will be whispered results (This will incur the issues previous highlighted in this thread). Button: There will be a button provided with the skills to allow suggestions to happen when they are wanted only. (This option will be enabled once I figure out how it needs to work.) Always: Suggestions will be included in the skill roll template as they are now. I hope with this it will appease the various options everyone is looking for. I know that in any given iteration of the character sheet there will be things people like and things people dislike. The purpose of the new suggestions system is to off load as much of the HTML as needed from the character sheet and into the script where it can be handled much better. Because of this, if you disable the skill suggestions entirely you will have to have an external source for the suggestions.

Version 6.3.0 beta 1 has been released. Version 6.3.0 will be used for refining the skill suggestions system and how the results are output to the users. I understand that not everyone is thrilled with how this new system works. In any release there will be those who don't like change. But change does happen in order to move forward. This new system is another step in paring down the amount of HTML on the character sheet. Helping it to perform better for everyone. This release is also a step to bridge the gap between those who like the new suggestions and those who don't. By giving options it should hopefully appeal to more people. In this first beta the first way of configuring the suggestions output is revealed. After script initialization you can set the flag using the following code as an example eote.defaults.globalVars.suggestionsFlag = eote.defaults.suggestionsStatus.always; The following is a list of the possible options: none: no suggestions. whisper: suggestions will only be whispered to the gm. Currently there is a bug where if a sheet has no owner then everyone gets whispered. This results in the GM getting two messages instead of only one as intended. Until this problem can be fixed only the GM will be messaged. always: suggestions will be integrated directly into the roll result.

Something that i seen (When updating the HTML) is some of the information doesn't copy over.. i have to reenter the abilities for all my riding beast so far... haven't check my NPCs yet.. just heads up sam :D

I think it due to updating from 5.4 to 6.3 so will keep a eye on when i install it into my main game to make sure no one missing anything Small bug - when adding skills to the beast part of the sheet, it adds more slots then needed (i enter one skill then i closing the sheet.. when i reopen it, it had 4 blank slots appeared)

Updating from 5.4 to 6.3 is a pretty massive leap. Do you find your data skill missing if you add it in 6.3 and then restart your campaign? Adding extra slots for skills is solely on Roll20. If you find it happening you should submit a bug report to the bugs forum.

most info is the same, nothing major yet.... what i do is, been adding all NPC into one game then i send them over to the reg game lmao

Acrisius said: most info is the same, nothing major yet.... what i do is, been adding all NPC into one game then i send them over to the reg game lmao I have no idea how the character sheet works with character transfers and that's out of the scope of my support. That's also on Roll20.

ya, it may have been just a little you change the text label and thats why to something on roll

When you are using a test (not uploaded to Roll20) version of a character sheet, you run the risk that things will be changed over the course of testing. On the other hand, before it is uploaded to be the Roll20 standard, there needs to be no loss of data/functionality from the previous version to the new one. So before version 6 replaces version 4, it will have to be able to transition without ruining long term campaigns. So, the fact you mention there was a bit of a hiccup is a bit of a reminder to both sets of folks (the testers and the author) of their responsibilities for their role, and the expectations they should temper appropriately. I am liking a lot of the changes. I am excited to see the version that ends up being "ready for prime time".

ya the only reason why i posted up was to keep a eye out on it.. i had it happen before where i just upgrade once and somethings got deleted so its one of those dont know if its code or roll20 that happen. I will know more as i play around to check things out :) if its roll20 then it will have nothing for here and i wouldnt post more about it.. it it is, i will have more detail about it make sure

I certainly agree that there needs to be as much compatibility with the old version as possible. The last thing I want to do is to wipe out legacy campaigns. If the riding beast problems are not just a one time hiccup on roll20's part (because it happens some times, even to me, because of quirks with roll20, not the sheet). Then I certainly want to know about it and try to fix it if it is possible. That being said, if there are upgrading issues with the riding beast I am actually not that distraught. In the current stable version the riding beast is still in the works and is not finished. In the old wiki players were warned to use it at their own risk. The npc section is a non-answer because that only came after the stable version. Besides the current work on the latest skill suggestions, I am curious Rhino what you feel still makes the current character sheet not suitable for deployment? The size of the html is not grossly bloated anymore and there have been a lot of fixes that the stable version would benefit from right now. Plus it would be smarter to bring the stable version up to code sooner than later. The longer that is waited the more drastic the upgrade will seem. Ultimately though when the version goes live is up to me and when I think it's ready.

Samuel T. said: Besides the current work on the latest skill suggestions, I am curious Rhino what you feel still makes the current character sheet not suitable for deployment? The size of the html is not grossly bloated anymore and there have been a lot of fixes that the stable version would benefit from right now. Plus it would be smarter to bring the stable version up to code sooner than later. The longer that is waited the more drastic the upgrade will seem. Ultimately though when the version goes live is up to me and when I think it's ready. What I think is not "ready": The Suggestions you have even stated require a manual change to the code depending on the setting you want, rather than a !eed command like nearly every other option that can be turned off. While the code is "not grossly bloated" it is still 33% larger than a sheet that was already nearly bursting at the seams. The skills section still needs the ? sections removed, as stated earlier. Part of the added code was taking an idea I was working on a different method than I did. Which was the "more code, but easier to implement" path rather than the "re-use the same thing" path. Referring to the NPC Sheet. I was working on making the companion sheet have a second option of NPC, but it was hard to get the code to switch how I wanted and I didn't have the knowledge to do what I wanted. You went the other way and just copied over a thousand lines of code to do a similar thing. It was the easier method, but the other method would have been maybe a few hundred lines of code (if that). The Force Power "fix" of adding more upgrades by default makes it harder to view 2 Force Powers at the same time. While it fixes the problem of not having room for all the upgrades of some Force Powers, for the Force Powers that don't need 11 options, they display ugly. The Cybernetics bonus section, was an area I was working on making more "flush" it looks like it either needs more lines added to the text area or needs some of the other information section moved around, but as it stands it is ugly. The red coloring for the tab tiles looks very much out of place compared to the previous method. I get you wanted to change it, but the first thing I do with each version is fix this so it isn't too much white. It is distracting as it is. Suggest either going to something that matches the rest of the sheet, or changing the "not selected" to a more neutral color like grey. The red coloring of the Critical Injuries/Hits that was left in, does not fit the rest of the design. I changed it because I had a separate Roll Template that made the Critical Injuries display with a red title, and you don't have that so it doesn't fit the design. The Piloting Planetary section uses a starship in the picture rather than something more planetary.&nbsp;I have something with the ugly colors of the space one I can provide you to fix this. The Group sheet you have mentioned a few times you want to fix in some manner (not sure what is meant by that) might want to do that first. The Group sheet you were working on syncing it to the GM sheet and vice versa back to the Player sheets, like the destiny pool. (Good luck on that, what I saw of the code when I tried it is going to be ugly). That is just with a cursory view of&nbsp;sheet and based on comments you have made in the thread and I would like to see. (That question was sort of "be careful what you wish for" when you asked what I thought was not ready.) I probably didn't even section off my notes correctly as their were quite a few things that need to be fixed, I got a bit lost in the indenting.

Just a note on version 6.1 (I don't have the latest version on my game yet): For some reason the initiative roller for PCs in this game won't post to the initiative tracker. Also, I am drawing the error "No attribute was found for @{MyCharacter|npc-pc}" when I make the roll. The roll displays in chat with the error, but is not posted.

Have you tried changing the radio select and then back to see if that sets it?

Yes. However, these are newly created characters under this version, if that helps.

GM Matt said: Yes. However, these are newly created characters under this version, if that helps. I get the same response with characters that are new and ones that are transmogrified in from other campaigns. Looking at the code he made a "oopsie" and accidentally make a rookie mistake.&nbsp;Sam changed the npc-pc attribute to character-pc not realizing the attribute was determining if they were a NPC or PC. Either the main attribute needs to be changed back in the initiative section, or the attribute needs to be updated in the roll command.