[5e Shaped] 5.0.4+ Spell Translations

It's not a workaround. It's a method to allow players to have a public chat part of their macro and then whisper the rest to the GM. It works. It's easy. And it's useful. @{prepend}@{wtype}&{template} {{template=stuff}} etc... A simple sheetworker can add the \n as needed. Or set it up as a checkbox so players can leave the info in the prepend text field and uncheck it to not use it for whatever reason.

It is not a good direction for the following reasons: It adds 2 fields (toggle, textarea, and parsed prepend) to each attack/trait/spell/action/reaction, etc It requires the user to maintain the textarea on all sections - it can't be toggled in 1 action It requires the sheet to support this method into the future (potentially limiting changes/maintainability) It splits up the roll template into 2 parts The sheet provides 3 options for outputting roll templates - hidden, open, or certain parts hidden (via css hack). To get a proper 3rd option (which this is trying to solve) requires roll20 to support certain parts of an output only being viewable by the GM. You're free to continue to use your 4th option with the prepending you've added, but the sheet will not support it for the reasons above.

I'll make something to show the bug later this evening. However, I just realized while playing that there is no concentration option on the sheet atm. atleast on the v5.0.4 .. Why was this removed?

See page 1 for concentration - it is managed under duration (translations don't have "Concentration, ", but that is fixed with the latest).

Kryx said: See page 1 for concentration - it is managed under duration (translations don't have "Concentration, ", but that is fixed with the latest). I see the list of duration settings like up to 1 minute, but nowhere does it say concentration?

Kryx said: translations don't have "Concentration, ", but that is fixed with the latest I just wrote that, yes, see above.

Kryx said: Kryx said: translations don't have "Concentration, ", but that is fixed with the latest I just wrote that, yes, see above. So there is no way to display that a spell has Concentration to it anymore? Why was that removed?

Kixao said: So there is no way to display that a spell has Concentration to it anymore? Why was that removed? Please read above. Concentration is there for every case of "up to X". They will look like "Concentration, up to X" when the translations are fixed on Monday or Tuesday when Roll20 pushes the changes lives.

Kryx said: It is not a good direction for the following reasons: It adds 2 fields (toggle, textarea, and parsed prepend) to each attack/trait/spell/action/reaction, etc It requires the user to maintain the textarea on all sections - it can't be toggled in 1 action It requires the sheet to support this method into the future (potentially limiting changes/maintainability) It splits up the roll template into 2 parts The sheet provides 3 options for outputting roll templates - hidden, open, or certain parts hidden (via css hack). To get a proper 3rd option (which this is trying to solve) requires roll20 to support certain parts of an output only being viewable by the GM. You're free to continue to use your 4th option with the prepending you've added, but the sheet will not support it for the reasons above. It does not require Roll20 to support anything new. The tools are there to allow players to have information both shown and hidden (whispered to the GM) within one macro. It's a much better solution than a css hack requiring installation of a third party browser addon/extension. One that players can use to see what should only be shown to the GM. It actually doesn't even require the extension. Dev console and examining the underlying css/html will reveal that information. There's no reason to not include something as simple as a text field that shows up in front of the roll template. Also, just tested... and having \n at the start of a macro is ignored unless there's something else in front of it. So you don't even need to use a sheetworker or hidden autocalc field to add \n. You can simply include it by default. @{Prepend}\n&{template:name} {{name=Test}} Works without any problems, so long as @{Prepend} is defined on the character sheet with an empty value like value="" in the input field html. No sheetworkers or hidden autocalc fields required. Doesn't limit any future additions or modifications to the sheet and requires no more player maintenance than they already have with updating various spells and weapons on their sheet.

@kryx Just popped in to work on my game. I believe you've already addressed these issues, but: <a href="http://screencast.com/t/kisiPQ9v0mco" rel="nofollow">http://screencast.com/t/kisiPQ9v0mco</a> Looks like a few translations may not be in? Also, if you're changing concentration to simply display "up to X" then I'd like to request that you prepend&nbsp; the word "Concentration", just like in the PH: <a href="http://screencast.com/t/PvxB98B7ntT8" rel="nofollow">http://screencast.com/t/PvxB98B7ntT8</a> I know this will confuse my players otherwise. Thanks!

Webcoder, please read above. It looks like you are running the sheet from github. If so you need to update the translation file as well.

SkyCaptainXIII said: It does not require Roll20 to support anything new. The tools are there to allow players to have information both shown and hidden (whispered to the GM) within one macro. It's a much better solution than a css hack requiring installation of a third party browser addon/extension. One that players can use to see what should only be shown to the GM.&nbsp;It actually doesn't even require the extension. Dev console and examining the underlying css/html will reveal that information. Prepending a different roll template is nothing close to hiding certain parts of a roll template. Notice how several parts of that same roll template are hidden. That is user configurable. That could not be done within the same roll template without the css hack. To do it with some prepending you'd have to break up the roll template and manually set everything it for every single attack, action, trait, spell, etc etc. Prepending will not be part of the sheet as it can't accomplish the desired goal in addition to causing the issues I outlined above.

You can split the template up into chat and whisper though. It's pretty much the same thing.

Kryx said: Webcoder, please read above. It looks like you are running the sheet from github. If so you need to update the translation file as well. Nope. I ran the sheet from Roll20. I never get it from Github. It's version 5.04 <a href="http://screencast.com/t/xcbzPbr4lAH" rel="nofollow">http://screencast.com/t/xcbzPbr4lAH</a>

What I'm taking from this is his answer is "no". I personally would not use that feature. Can we get the thread back on track with problem reporting and updates?

Webcoder, have you updated the translations? Red text is from missing translations. Please see the OP.

Kryx said: Webcoder, have you updated the translations? Red text is from missing translations. Please see the OP. Not sure I understand, does the sheet no longer default to English? Just to be clear I never have created a custom sheet from GIT. I just use the latest version of Shaped that Roll20 provides me. Last night I fired up my game and it loaded 5.04 with those various issues. Do I need to do something manually to fix it, or is a fix in the works for the next time Roll20 updates Shaped?

Step 7 and 8 of using a custom sheet in the OP outline exactly what needs to be done.

I found a strange bug in the current Roll20 live version. Sadly I do not have the time right now to look up whether it has been fixed yet so if it has, please just ignore this post :) There seems to be some problem with the Initiative field in the sheet. When I open my sheet the box is empty. If I then make some changes to the field, for example putting a flat out bonus in or changing my Dexterity, the number appears. After closing the sheet, however, and opening it again, the field again is empty until I change something. I just oberserved this problem seems to only occur with a Dexterity score of 10 and no bonus added. If I first enter a bonus or another Dexterity score resulting in an Initiative score other than 0, the field seems to be working just fine. In addition I noticed when changing the Dexterity score to something other then 10 the field updates. When changing back to 10 Dexterity, the Initiative field does not update or change the score accordingly. I hope I described the problem in an understandable way.

Initiative doesn't show unless it is not 0 due to&nbsp; An Attribute set to 0 no longer shows on the sheet

That explains the problem with the Initiative not showing when closing the sheet and having no bonuses and 10 Dexterity. But does this transfer to the problem of switching to 12 Dexterity (the Initiative field now shows a 1) and back to 10 Dexterity (the Initiative field still showing a 1)? No other bonuses present in the example.

Yes, it's the same problem. Being set to 0 doesn't seem to work. I will link them to this post to show how it isn't working.

Kaelev said: What I'm taking from this is his answer is "no". I personally would not use that feature. Can we get the thread back on track with problem reporting and updates? What I want is an update to the sheet and would be a valuable update. Just because you won't use it, doesn't mean others wouldn't. I know of at least two GMs not including myself that would use the pre-pend field.

SkyCaptainXIII said: Kaelev said: What I'm taking from this is his answer is "no". I personally would not use that feature. Can we get the thread back on track with problem reporting and updates? What I want is an update to the sheet and would be a valuable update. Just because you won't use it, doesn't mean others wouldn't. I know of at least two GMs not including myself that would use the pre-pend field. Could you please just let it go already? Kryx has explained over almost half of this thread plus other times why he doesn't want to put this in the sheet. If you really want it in the Shaped sheet, make a forked version for yourself. Every extra field adds lag, and for the sake of hiding part of the roll template, I personally don't want or need this feature (because in my game with all the NPCs I have that actually means 500 odd extra fields). (I wrote this yesterday and then deleted it because I thought that I was the only one feeling this way, but given Kaelev's response, I'm reposting it)

No, I'm not going to let it go. It is an easy and useful update to the sheet that would make it more flexible. And the reason I don't want to fork a version of it, is because it won't be used by other DM's since it won't show up on the list of character sheets. I believe the devs have said they don't want ten billion versions of the same sheets for the same system. So I am here lobbying for this update so that I can use it in games where I'm not the DM.

Liam said: SkyCaptainXIII said: Kaelev said: What I'm taking from this is his answer is "no". I personally would not use that feature. Can we get the thread back on track with problem reporting and updates? What I want is an update to the sheet and would be a valuable update. Just because you won't use it, doesn't mean others wouldn't. I know of at least two GMs not including myself that would use the pre-pend field. Could you please just let it go already? Kryx has explained over almost half of this thread plus other times why he doesn't want to put this in the sheet. If you really want it in the Shaped sheet, make a forked version for yourself. Every extra field adds lag, and for the sake of hiding part of the roll template, I personally don't want or need this feature (because in my game with all the NPCs I have that actually means 500 odd extra fields). (I wrote this yesterday and then deleted it because I thought that I was the only one feeling this way, but given Kaelev's response, I'm reposting it) I agree, it doesn't appear to be something most people want, so the best option would be to create a fork of the sheet and use that instead. I personally don't want it, and I really like how snappy this sheet is, compared to what it was in the old version. It's much faster, and it would be a shame to lose that for most users, so a few users can gain a feature they have already implemented on a customised version of the sheet.

alexander h. said: I agree, it doesn't appear to be something most people want, so the best option would be to create a fork of the sheet and use that instead. I personally don't want it, and I really like how snappy this sheet is, compared to what it was in the old version. It's much faster, and it would be a shame to lose that for most users, so a few users can gain a feature they have already implemented on a customised version of the sheet. Again, even if I did fork the sheet... it WILL NOT show up in the drop down list and wouldn't serve the purpose of being able to use it in other DM's games without bothering them to change the character sheets they're already using to a custom one. There's already a crapload of other text fields on the sheet and adding a few more won't make a huge difference.

SkyCaptainXIII said: alexander h. said: I agree, it doesn't appear to be something most people want, so the best option would be to create a fork of the sheet and use that instead. I personally don't want it, and I really like how snappy this sheet is, compared to what it was in the old version. It's much faster, and it would be a shame to lose that for most users, so a few users can gain a feature they have already implemented on a customised version of the sheet. Again, even if I did fork the sheet... it WILL NOT show up in the drop down list and wouldn't serve the purpose of being able to use it in other DM's games without bothering them to change the character sheets they're already using to a custom one. There's already a crapload of other text fields on the sheet and adding a few more won't make a huge difference. That attitude is why so many programs have such terrible performance. "There's already a bunch of these calls, a few more won't hurt". A couple of extra text fields doesn't matter when you've only got a couple of sheets. But if you've got a lot of different monsters, those couple of extra text fields become a significant amount of extra text fields, and saving even a little becomes very important at that point. Plus, it sounds like each macro would have to have its own field, to give enough customisability. That means each item in each repeating section needs its own. A full caster like a cleric or wizard is definitely going to notice that. And you have to understand, from what you've said, you know of 3 DMs who are going to use this. 3 DMs getting something by default is not worth power users getting a slower sheet.&nbsp; And if it's something you personally can't do without, tell your DM and ask them to use the custom one. If you outline the benefits to using your custom sheet, if they're interested in the feature, they're probably going to use it. If they're not interested in that feature, why should they suffer reduced performance

Doesn't matter how many monsters you have now. Handouts, character sheets, and such don't load until they're opened. And with the performance gains from sheetworkers, there's room for additional text fields. The biggest hit is using hidden autocalc fields.

alexander h. said: SkyCaptainXIII said: alexander h. said: I agree, it doesn't appear to be something most people want, so the best option would be to create a fork of the sheet and use that instead. I personally don't want it, and I really like how snappy this sheet is, compared to what it was in the old version. It's much faster, and it would be a shame to lose that for most users, so a few users can gain a feature they have already implemented on a customised version of the sheet. Again, even if I did fork the sheet... it WILL NOT show up in the drop down list and wouldn't serve the purpose of being able to use it in other DM's games without bothering them to change the character sheets they're already using to a custom one. There's already a crapload of other text fields on the sheet and adding a few more won't make a huge difference. That attitude is why so many programs have such terrible performance. "There's already a bunch of these calls, a few more won't hurt". A couple of extra text fields doesn't matter when you've only got a couple of sheets. But if you've got a lot of different monsters, those couple of extra text fields become a significant amount of extra text fields, and saving even a little becomes very important at that point. Plus, it sounds like each macro would have to have its own field, to give enough customisability. That means each item in each repeating section needs its own. A full caster like a cleric or wizard is definitely going to notice that. And you have to understand, from what you've said, you know of 3 DMs who are going to use this. 3 DMs getting something by default is not worth power users getting a slower sheet.&nbsp; And if it's something you personally can't do without, tell your DM and ask them to use the custom one. If you outline the benefits to using your custom sheet, if they're interested in the feature, they're probably going to use it. If they're not interested in that feature, why should they suffer reduced performance The bolded part is exactly why I don't want this. In my game, I already have a cleric where her PC struggles to open the sheet (very old laptop), and she's only Level 5, and she doesn't even have all her spells on there (I just delete and add spells for prepared so there is less lag). This sort of update would likely cripple her ability to play with the sheet, failing back on macros instead (and no, I won't kick someone from a game just because their PC can't handle a full sheet, especially as she's a RL friend). The problem with this whole issue, is that you are mainly thinking how this is best for you, not the playerbase at large. Just because it's an easy code change to make, doesn't mean it's the right one.

Beyond the performance issue there are these issues: Kryx said: It requires the user to maintain the textarea on all sections - it can't be toggled in 1 action It requires the sheet to support this method into the future (potentially limiting changes/maintainability) It splits up the roll template into 2 parts As I wrote above: Kryx said: The sheet provides 3 options for outputting roll templates - hidden, open, or certain parts hidden (via css hack). To get a proper 3rd option (which this is trying to solve) requires roll20 to support certain parts of an output only being viewable by the GM. You're free to continue to use your 4th option with the prepending you've added, but the sheet will not support it for the reasons above.

I can't use custom sheets in other DM's games. Hence why I would like for this option to be added to the default sheet. It is simply a single text field in front of the macro that gives players an option to add their own text before the template is sent. Players already have to maintain the textarea in all sections. It won't limit any changes and the impact to maintaining is it negligible. It is ONE text area, assigned as a variable like @{attack_prepend} in front of the template call. It is NO different than having @{wtype} in front of the template to be able to toggle between whispering the macro and sending it to chat. It doesn't split the template. The template is still all one piece. It just gives the players an additional option for adding their own touch to their macros.

I cannot make it any clearer: The option will not be added .

It should be. It's simple, easy, and makes macros more flexible for players for a negligible amount of work. Just adding this for the repeating attack section and adding @{pretext}\n &lt;div class="col-45 pad-r-sm"&gt;&lt;textarea name="attr_pretext" class="one-line-textarea" accept="Content"&gt;&lt;/textarea&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;button type="roll" name="roll_attack" value=" @{pretext}\n @{output_option} &{template:5e-shaped}

Kryx said: Step 7 and 8 of using a custom sheet in the OP outline exactly what needs to be done. Man, I feel very dense here, like I'm missing something. I have not ever done a custom sheet nor do I want to, so I'm hoping to avoid using that list of steps at all. Is the future of Shaped a "custom" sheet now where we'll always copy & paste html / css / translation from GIT? Or, are we free to simply let Roll20 handle the updates and still get the English translation as the default? Or, can I only add in the English translation from GIT while still using the Shaped sheet from Roll20? Or, is this a bug and I update from GIT to fix it and then switch back to the Shaped Roll20 sheet? I have no problem doing work to fix a bug, I just don't want to manually maintain the sheet from GIT. Put another way, my goal is to not use GIT, and am hoping there's a way to automatically default to the English translation of the Shaped sheet. Thanks again, and hopefully my stumbling helps other people with the same issue.

@SkyCaptain &gt;&nbsp;I can't use custom sheets in other DM's games. Yes, you can. In fact, I am doing this right now with two DMs. There are two ways to achieve this: - Create a game under your own Pro account, make someone else DM. Handle all sheet and API updating for them. (this is what I'm doing) - Lobby your DM to get a Pro account, and to use your Custom sheet. Neither one of these options is particularly convenient for you. I get that. However your change would be vastly inconvenient to a majority of players. What you continue to be pestering Kryx for is that your convenience trumps other people's inconvenience. That's more than just a little self-centered of you. Right now you're being that guy.&nbsp;Stop being that guy. If you absolutely, positively, just HAVE TO keep on with this thing, then listen to the advice of your peers: Petition roll20 to allow portions of roll template output to be sent only to GM. That would give you what you want, and improve the game for thousands of other players as well. Win-Win. @Kryx has the patience of a saint :).

TheWebCoder said: Kryx said: Step 7 and 8 of using a custom sheet in the OP outline exactly what needs to be done. Man, I feel very dense here, like I'm missing something. I have not ever done a custom sheet nor do I want to, so I'm hoping to avoid using that list of steps at all. Is the future of Shaped a "custom" sheet now where we'll always copy & paste html / css / translation from GIT? Or, are we free to simply let Roll20 handle the updates and still get the English translation as the default? Or, can I only add in the English translation from GIT while still using the Shaped sheet from Roll20? Or, is this a bug and I update from GIT to fix it and then switch back to the Shaped Roll20 sheet? I have no problem doing work to fix a bug, I just don't want to manually maintain the sheet from GIT. Put another way, my goal is to not use GIT, and am hoping there's a way to automatically default to the English translation of the Shaped sheet. Thanks again, and hopefully my stumbling helps other people with the same issue. The translation stuff should be handled by roll20 automatically if you are using the sheet from the dropdown list, looks like you have a bug regarding the translation (which when the sheet is used through Custom, usually shows when the translation file hasn't been used, which I think Kryx assumed was the case). It looks like with you, the translation file isn't being applied on roll20's side for some reason.

Liam said: The translation stuff should be handled by roll20 automatically if you are using the sheet from the dropdown list, looks like you have a bug regarding the translation (which when the sheet is used through Custom, usually shows when the translation file hasn't been used, which I think Kryx assumed was the case). It looks like with you, the translation file isn't being applied on roll20's side for some reason. That's right. I have never switched this from Shaped to custom and used GIT: <a href="http://screencast.com/t/qhodCesG" rel="nofollow">http://screencast.com/t/qhodCesG</a>

Greetings all, let's please make sure that we are communicating in the way outlined in our&nbsp; Code of Conduc t -&nbsp; This is our community, and as stewards of it, we have an obligation to promote a healthy and positive discourse. Kryx said: I cannot make it any clearer: The option will not be added . It is ultimately up to the sheet author to implement changes to their character sheets. Since Kryx has clearly stated this will not be added, let's please move forward from this issue.

Hey WebCoder, Sorry I was a bit off my game in my previous response. I got a bit frustrated at having to repeat some things and didn't fully investigate what you asked about. It seems your conversion did not go correctly. I would suggest waiting until roll20 pushes the latest version (which I expected today) and then re-add those spells. I see an issue with the duration of guidance when dragged from the SRD on 5.0.4, but not on 5.0.5. So I'd wait until they release that.

5.0.6 (2016-07-03) Bug Fixes Spell is set to cantrip if the old version failed (most likely failed as a result of not setting the level which means it was a cantrip) Initiative can now be based on any ability - setting on the settings page. Defaults to Dex. This was actually released a few days ago. Still not live though.

Kryx said: Hey WebCoder, Sorry I was a bit off my game in my previous response. I got a bit frustrated at having to repeat some things and didn't fully investigate what you asked about. It seems your conversion did not go correctly. I would suggest waiting until roll20 pushes the latest version (which I expected today) and then re-add those spells. I see an issue with the duration of guidance when dragged from the SRD on 5.0.4, but not on 5.0.5. So I'd wait until they release that. Got it. That was actually my plan: see if the update tonight fixes it. Otherwise we can just re-enter the spells. As an aside, please know there's a whole lot of folks in the community who really appreciate your contribution.

For anyone experiencing any issues, I was playing on Tuesday after not playing for a while. Every single action on my monster sheets had the "attack" option deselected. Every spell on my player sheets had the "attack" option selected. None of my macros worked. I simply had to uncheck or check boxes, but the monster macros still didn't work. I then tabbed through every field and they worked again. I'm not pro, so I don't have the API stuff. Would you recommend getting it? Does it do that much?

So I found this quite annoying :P While adding the feature Breath Weapon to a PC of mine it keeps rolling the thing with a Dex mod even if its specified that it shouldnt ? EDIT: Also another weird bug is that I went to change the armor class to give it a bonus 1 to his armor because he is a Paladin with the Defense fighting style. Now it permanantly displays armor class 9 on the core page even though the armored number on the equipment page says 20?

Joss, The API won't help with that issue at all. That issue is a result of the sheet upgrade. API is useful for importing monster and spells mainly. Kixao: Please try to reproduce those issues on a new character. If they are reproducible please provide a reproduction path.

Kryx said: Joss, The API won't help with that issue at all. That issue is a result of the sheet upgrade. API is useful for importing monster and spells mainly. Kixao: Please try to reproduce those issues on a new character. If they are reproducible please provide a reproduction path. I found the issue. I had set the weapon type as "ranged", because technically it is a ranged attack. But It that automatically added the dex mod to the roll, after changing the type to "other" the dex mod was gone :)