[5e Shaped] 6.9.1+

That'll be fixed if you pull the latest css.

Kryx said: I will fix it so attacks are toggleable for their weight somehow. Great, thanks :)

6.10.3 (2016-10-22) Bug Fixes Attacks now have a carried toggle while in edit mode Attack bonus on attacks now shows the arithmetic operator (So +5 or +10 or -1) Initiative now shows the arithmetic operator Spellbook spells have a minimum height to prevent overlap while modifying the repeating section when in edit mode, causing uncertainty which one is being deleted.

Kryx, Loving the updates and where the sheet is headed. Quick question, I'm getting this with the spell macro for this Warlock and other casters. Do I need to manually enter these fields in attributes & abilities, or should they have been auto filled somehow? 6.10.2 sheet.

Please update to the very latest for any bug reports. Let me know if you experience it on 6.10.3 as there were some issues with the updates not firing.

OK, just updated from 6.10.2 -> 6.10.3, and there was no change to the spell macro output.

Something is going wrong with the upgrade detection. Do the following: In the attributes and abilities section set your version to 6.9.0 Close the sheet Refresh the page Open the sheet and the version should be 6.10.3 and everything should be working.

Thank you Kryx! That worked like a charm.

I'm not sure what is going on with upgrading. It seems to only be taking the most recent upgrade which is very strange. I'll have to do some testing. I'll release a version shortly that will put every recent upgrade on the latest version.

6.11.0 (2016-10-22) Features Psionics now mimic spells' new setup Bug fixes Every recent upgrade forced to this version to make sure they work

Random thought prompted by the issue of casters with large spell lists - particularly clerics, who get to prepare from their whole spell list each day. As Kryx has pointed out, it's not recommended to populate the whole cleric spell list into the sheet, but I can see the appeal - when you want to select your spells for the day it's easier to be able to just scan through the available list and mark the relevant ones as prepared. What I'm wondering is whether we can make this a bit nicer for those with API access. You can obviously use the script to add your prepared spells each day, but it's actually still quite a faff to do.  Some possible ways to improve this: Somehow have the sheet allow a "sparse" spell list whereby only the name and level are populated for most spells. Perhaps this already works - if you only fill in these parts of the spell I guess maybe it's a lot lighter on the attributes and the performance isn't so bad? Then we could have a script command that fills out just those spells marked as prepared? Have a chat-window UI for preparing spells. Based on your class it would offer you options for what to prepare and then populate your spell list with just these things? Not exactly sure how it would be best to structure such a UI. Have a way of saving/loading named sets of spells to make switching easier "Delete all" may also make some of these use cases simpler - but this may actually be possible using sheetworkers now that we've discovered it's possible to delete rows using them... What do people think? Anyone have any other bright ideas how to make this nicer while avoiding overloading the sheet?

I like the "empty" spells option. Makes a lot of sense. Though with the right custom database you could macro this up to work just fine. Maybe a delete all function for spells. Than a chat template filled with API buttons that you click to prepare. Something like !shaped-spells-cleric-4 And that presents you with a clickable list of all the 4th level cleric spells. However that doesnt address what to do if I prepare a spell twice......

Avatar of Woah said: And that presents you with a clickable list of all the 4th level cleric spells. However that doesnt address what to do if I prepare a spell twice...... If it's the script doing it, it can ignore you. In fact, that's a pretty good idea anyway. I'll create an issue for this - I think the script should prevent you from adding duplicate spells since that's meaningless in 5e.

Lucian said: If it's the script doing it, it can ignore you. In fact, that's a pretty good idea anyway. I'll create an issue for this - I think the script should prevent you from adding duplicate spells since that's meaningless in 5e. The script should warn you, but not prevent you. It's similar to the issue I told you about with monsters: sometimes I want to use a monster as a base to then modify further. If I already have that monster then that doesn't work. Same with spells. Or perhaps I have a magic item that can boost my fireball damage twice a day so I create a second fireball for that usage.

Kryx said: Lucian said: If it's the script doing it, it can ignore you. In fact, that's a pretty good idea anyway. I'll create an issue for this - I think the script should prevent you from adding duplicate spells since that's meaningless in 5e. The script should warn you, but not prevent you. It's similar to the issue I told you about with monsters: sometimes I want to use a monster as a base to then modify further. If I already have that monster then that doesn't work. Same with spells. Or perhaps I have a magic item that can boost my fireball damage twice a day so I create a second fireball for that usage. Good point. I think what I'll do is have the script refuse to duplicate by default, but have switches that allow duplication or replacing if that's desired behaviour.

To address adding a lot of spells to the sheet, lets look at the results. I added a little over half the spells before my browser hung and I closed it. The result is this: My character has become almost unusable due to the lag. The campaign takes significantly longer to load. The character takes significantly longer to load. The spells page would have to be as big as my 2560x1600 screen to even cover the amount of spells I added, not even all of them. This many spells should not be added to the character sheet, not only from a performance standpoint, but also from a UI standpoint.

Lucian said: Good point. I think what I'll do is have the script refuse to duplicate by default, but have switches that allow duplication or replacing if that's desired behaviour. I would instead suggest you prompt the user with a chat message that has a button to proceed. Configuration to turn it on or off isn't a great option for those cases.

Kryx said: The script should warn you, but not prevent you. It's similar to the issue I told you about with monsters: sometimes I want to use a monster as a base to then modify further. If I already have that monster then that doesn't work. Same with spells. Or perhaps I have a magic item that can boost my fireball damage twice a day so I create a second fireball for that usage. I agree with Kryx here... I can't tell you how many times I have say a generic "thug", then later I have a unique, named NPC that uses the the statblock of a "thug".  I could see the same problems with spells as well.

Kryx said: Lucian said: Good point. I think what I'll do is have the script refuse to duplicate by default, but have switches that allow duplication or replacing if that's desired behaviour. I would instead suggest you prompt the user with a chat message that has a button to proceed. Configuration to turn it on or off isn't a great option for those cases. Sorry, I meant a command line "switch" i.e. a --replace or --duplicate. This can easily be combined with a chat message offering buttons with the original command + each of those two options.

Kevin said: Kryx said: The script should warn you, but not prevent you. It's similar to the issue I told you about with monsters: sometimes I want to use a monster as a base to then modify further. If I already have that monster then that doesn't work. Same with spells. Or perhaps I have a magic item that can boost my fireball damage twice a day so I create a second fireball for that usage. I agree with Kryx here... I can't tell you how many times I have say a generic "thug", then later I have a unique, named NPC that uses the the statblock of a "thug".  I could see the same problems with spells as well. Also, I should point out that, as with monsters, the logic would depend on the current name of the spell. I too use generic statblocks for NPCs/other monsters - but in practice it doesn't usually cause me a problem because I rename them as they are imported. Perhaps a --as [Some other name] option would also be useful here?

Lucian said: Also, I should point out that, as with monsters, the logic would depend on the current name of the spell. I too use generic statblocks for NPCs/other monsters - but in practice it doesn't usually cause me a problem because I rename them as they are imported. Perhaps a --as [Some other name] option would also be useful here? That would be a tremendously useful option!

Ok so have a few bugs that I seem to be able to reproduce consistently in the test game so far. - New sheet - Warlock level 3 - Go to spell page, added spells "acid arrow, acid splash, aid, alarm, hold person" At this point I found adding the spell mage hand does not update the  condensed view at the top till another spell is added. Also at this time, if you view the condensed view at the top or on core, the spell slots read 1st-level (0/). To make a 0 appear for max you can set the class to wizard and back giving you 0/0 Total Spell points are also reading 0/0 for classes at this point. Now ignoring those bugs to make sure that nothing is disturbed in the reproduction process, after adding those 5 spell,  - Add rogue level 5 You now have (every time I followed these steps at least) 5 error-ed empty spell entries. Everything is looking great though. I have to admit it took me a min to realize default ability was in the header now. I would still like to see the prepared button in display mode as I did use that when playing classes like cleric, wizard, and druid.  As for spell performance, it would be nice to try and get usable performance from 40 or less spells as a max level wizard would know 44 spells by default, could prepare 25, and for non api/non spell importing it would be nice not to have to remove non-compendium spells and have to manually re-enter them just because they are not prepared. Even at that point it will be rare I think for many to reach that point but having decent performance at 40 or even 30 would cover most cases since 20th level caster could prepare 25 spells.

Vanakoji said: At this point I found adding the spell mage hand does not update the  condensed view at the top till another spell is added. Cantrips don't seem to update the spell list. I'll investigate Vanakoji said: Also at this time, if you view the condensed view at the top or on core, the spell slots read 1st-level (0/). To make a 0 appear for max you can set the class to wizard and back giving you 0/0 Turn off spell slots. Warlocks don't have them. :) I'll turn it off by default and only set it to be true if you have a class with spellcasting (non-warlock) Vanakoji said: Total Spell points are also reading 0/0 for classes at this point. Spell points are manually set. Though if you're talking about them showing in the chat macro that'll be fixed in the next version. Vanakoji said: Now ignoring those bugs to make sure that nothing is disturbed in the reproduction process, after adding those 5 spell,  - Add rogue level 5 You now have (every time I followed these steps at least) 5 error-ed empty spell entries. Ah, you have found the cause! It happens with barbarian and probably other classes too. spells.update is being called and somehow in this state adds erroring items. I'll add a check to see if I can prevent it. Vanakoji said: I would still like to see the prepared button in display mode as I did use that when playing classes like cleric, wizard, and druid.  I'm waiting to hear what others think. Prepared matters for 4/11 spellcasting options (paladin as well). Vanakoji said: As for spell performance, it would be nice to try and get usable performance from 40 or less spells as a max level wizard would know 44 spells by default, could prepare 25, and for non api/non spell importing it would be nice not to have to remove non-compendium spells and have to manually re-enter them just because they are not prepared. Even at that point it will be rare I think for many to reach that point but having decent performance at 40 or even 30 would cover most cases since 20th level caster could prepare 25 spells. There is no cutoff point (30 or 40 or 45). Simply more spells = more lag. I optimized spells as much as a I could a few months back - there is nothing more to optimize without removing functionality.

6.11.1 (2016-10-23) Bug Fixes Spell slots now only toggled if you have a class with spellcasting or manually toggle it (upgrade added) Spell chat macro on a new character no longer has errors Spell list now updates for cantrips. Same with Psionics and talents. Spells with errors should no longer occur in any scenario. Same with Psionics.

From some tests, nothing major seems to be coming up with the spell section rework, it looks great. Here are the few thing I noticed. - The quick button for the equipment section seems to not register a click on the right half, so you have to click on the left have to toggle it. - Armor does not seem to be parsing right, base AC is not added but a +1 armor is getting the +1 added. - Equipment, such as explorer's pack and caltrops for example, are not getting their description put into the content field when dragged in. While looking at spells, I notice that the old issue of if the higher level query is toggled on and you toggle it off, you will still always get the higher level query if you have higher level slots. So if I were to take inflict woulds, toggle higher level off, it will still give me the drop down for it even though it doesn't do anything to the damage if a higher level is selected. This update is looking great though, only s few small things with drag and drop seem to be the issue from my tests at least.

I know you've said the equipment tab is gone (and respect that) but as you're soliciting feedback from the community thought I'd add some thoughts for thoughts' sake. Whilst trying to adhere as close as possible to the paper sheet is a worthwhile goal, I think your implementation of equipment was actually a great improvement over the paper sheet; far more usable, informative and manageable. I think the equipment section on the paper sheet is actually very poorly designed and in many ways not fit for purpose. It is cluttered, small, with no space for descriptions, uses, weights, notes. Even reasonable inventories can easily fill up the space provided. In every real-world campaign I've played in, most players ended up writing their equipment on the back of their character sheets due to these limitations; something your tabbed approach emulated perfectly. Even compared to previous editions, the showing on the 5e character sheet is very poor. Of everything on the 5e paper sheet it is the thing I think most important to move away from. A separate equipment tab allowed a proper inventory. It allowed easy management, notes, descriptions. It allowed easy editing due to the greater amount of space devoted to the text boxes. It allowed separate inventory sections at a glance by adding empty items. It allowed easy perusal of item descriptions and functions, very useful for magic items without clogging up the chat. The inventory/equipment setup of the sheet was something mentioned explicitly by those I play with (11-12 people) as being far better than the paper sheet's offering. Apart from separate nested containers (for Bags of Holding, vault storage, etc) your implementation offered everything me and the others I played with were looking for. The previous equipment tab is something me and mine will sorely miss; it was a vast improvement over WotC's design and the most noticeable and visible change.

The equipment never mirrored the paper sheet and it doesn't now. So it seems best to leave that part of the topic to the side so we can focus on what we had vs what we have: Have you used the new equipment? Do you find something missing or insufficient? I believe Equipment on the core page has all of the previously functionality (with the increased functionality of the quick button). If more room is needed for descriptions the content textarea can be dragged to be bigger. Is there something missing?

Vanakoji said: - The quick button for the equipment section seems to not register a click on the right half, so you have to click on the left have to toggle it. - Armor does not seem to be parsing right, base AC is not added but a +1 armor is getting the +1 added. - Equipment, such as explorer's pack and caltrops for example, are not getting their description put into the content field when dragged in. While looking at spells, I notice that the old issue of if the higher level query is toggled on and you toggle it off, you will still always get the higher level query if you have higher level slots. So if I were to take inflict woulds, toggle higher level off, it will still give me the drop down for it even though it doesn't do anything to the damage if a higher level is selected. I'll take a look at these asap. Though it may be on Wednesday as I start a campaign tomorrow. Thanks for testing.

The equipment never mirrored the paper sheet and it doesn't now. So it seems best to leave that part of the topic to the side so we can focus on what we had vs what we have: My understanding was that was the primary motivator for moving it onto the core tab? I was saying that, in my experience and opinion, that part of the paper sheet is inferior and something I'd be happy to have different in design. Have you used the new equipment? Do you find something missing or insufficient? I believe Equipment on the core page has all of the previously functionality (with the increased functionality of the quick button). If more room is needed for descriptions the content textarea can be dragged to be bigger. Whilst the basic functionality is mostly still there (weight calculation, uses, etc), I do feel the presentation/usability has suffered from having to squeeze it into a smaller space and it being at the bottom of the rest of the character sheet. Whereas before you could peruse the notes, descriptions, etc in Presentation Mode and see the important text at a glance now you have to switch to Edit Mode, expand the relevant entries, (reduce them if you want to avoid clutter later) then switch Edit Mode off. This is particularly necessary if the eventual design goal is that you shouldn't be clicking stuff unless you're using it or your DM doesn't want you cluttering up chat by checking an item description. Before, all information was available at a glance, without scrolling up and down (unless you had a truly huge inventory); gold, carrying weight, equipment, weapons, armor, all were locatable in an instant. Expanding a content block was the entirety of the needed interactions beyond switching tab. With the new system there is far more back and forth in a given session; scrolling down to see how much gold I have, scrolling up to make a roll, scrolling down and switching to Edit to see what exact effect that magic item has. It feels as though being in Edit mode is much more of a necessity for interacting with the equipment section now, even if you just want to get information rather than set it. Aesthetically as well, the smaller space suffers. In the full tab the space for item names was large enough (and the fact that they didn't wrap) that everything was on a single line, meaning parsing the quantity and weight at a quick glance was easier due to even spacing. Only expanding the content block would disrupt that and that didn't persist between loadings. On the new one, due to limited space, the names wrap and hence the aesthetic is disrupted. Perhaps a minor issue but aesthetic and mental load are aspects to consider and an area where I feel the previous iteration was better. Editing entries feels more cluttered as well compared to the large amount of space (both to write in and surrounding the entries) before. Perhaps these are areas that workflow/use case will adapt around but, at least in the way I've seen it used and used it personally, the previous version was easier to interact with and more aesthetically pleasing.

For checking the description of an item without clogging up the chat, there's a very simple solution: the talktomyself keyword. In every single campaign I play in, both as player and DM, I have a personal macro in my macro quickbar that simply posts "/talktomyself" in the chat. This activates talktomyself mode. In this mode, everything you post in the chat is only shown to you. Scripts don't work here (perfect for not decrementing uses when checking abilities, or ammo for weapons), and everything posted will only display to you, and will disappear when you reload the page. If you create a macro with the command, you simply press a button in the VTT, and it's activated. When you press it again, it's deactivated. It is the single most important macro I have, and it's universal between game systems.  The existence of this function seems to solve your major issue, James. Bearing this function in mind, would you still prefer to have equipment on a separate tab?

Ha! I feel stupid. I have a button for TTM, myself. And I noticed that scripts don't run when it is active. But for some reason, I never once thought of using it in the way you describe. Great tip! Thanks!

James M. said: Whilst the basic functionality is mostly still there (weight calculation, uses, etc) What  functionality  is missing? If anything is missing (like carried was for weapons) I want to fix it. If this discussion is about aesthetics then lets focus on those. Tabular layout for non-tabular data Focusing on just the aesthetics lets examine the layout option we had before: We had a tabular (table) style layout presenting non-tabular data. That is a pretty big no-no in design so the starting layout has some design flaws. Not all fields were available When viewing attacks on either core or equipment not all of the fields were available which required the user to switch back and forth between the views and edit mode or not. This has been reduced to edit mode or not which is seemingly a better option. Not designed with Edit mode The whole sheet was not designed with edit mode in mind. What you're seeing lately is the sheet being redesigned piece by piece with edit mode in mind. If I had the idea of edit mode in the beginning then the sheet would've looked quite different. Consistent with Attacks The new behavior of Equipment and Armor is mirroring the behavior that Attacks have had since near the beginning of the sheet. This new design shouldn't surprise anyone Overview Back to the attacks topic: Attacks have had this design for a long time and there have been no calls for a better overview of attacks. The previous view on the equipment page was incredibly limited and largely there because it is part of equipment, but it added no value imo. If you think there are scenarios where an overview would be helpful it's possible that we show the description/content sections with a toggle if desired, but that wasn't possible on the old view either as it was limited to a 1 line textarea. If there are scenarios where an overview could help then we can discuss possible solutions, but I prefer to understand the use case before "solving" something by adding more clutter. Preferences I want to reiterate what I've said a few times before: everyone has a preference. It would be impossible for me to meet everyone's preferences. Additionally there is the factor of change and people are notoriously against change in many facets of their life, but this can be seen quite apparently when viewing user reactions to a redesign of Facebook, iOS, Android, or even Roll20. Invariably there is always a certain portion of the user base who is dissatisfied initially. Eventually most of those users grow accustomed to the new user experience and they don't even realize. There are still some who don't, but that can't really be stopped. Smaller widths If you reduce the width of the old character sheet and use the old equipment tab it quickly becomes problematic. The sheet originally wasn't designed to be used in smaller widths, now it is. Checking Items I would not recommend using chat as a way to check without using TTM like mentioned above. Ammo is automatically used, Traits and equipment automatically reduce their qty or uses, etc. If you want a way to output content to yourself TTM is that option

That will work as a nice solution going forward for the description aspect. But for me personally (and the others in my groups) I still preferred having it in a separate tab for cleanliness and aesthetic reasons; it was nice having the delineation and the space to work on a part of the character sheet that can become quite vast. (Another aspect I think the new version loses that was just pointed out to me is when it comes to the non-mechanical but character-motivating items; those aren't so much things my groups would actively need to check but often jog memories or character ideals simply by catching them as you're perusing. Seeing the description off-hand and remembering you're wearing the robes awarded by the sovereign or that your item is actually made from pure onyx and isn't just a standard one is a nice little feature the tabbed version allowed. Or, for one member of my group, always chuckling when he catches the list of skulls he's lugging around with him :p Not a huge feature but something lost.)

What functionality is missing? Functionality-wise, the only thing was item description viewing from within the sheet itself. I guess whether you view this as functionality or aesthetics comes down to how it's used but I always found it functional. Tabular layout for non-tabular data I guess where I'm coming from is that I don't view equipment details as non-tabular (that was one of the critiques about the paper version I mentioned earlier); they have nicely separated fields. Name, weight, quantity, uses and, for me anyway, description/notes all work well as columns; that's how I inherently organised it when I've done my inventory in a spreadsheet before. Description/notes aren't a necessity but I've always found them a boon and thought it something you'd added that improved the experience :) Not all fields were available Consistent with Attacks I must admit this never bothered me; attacks were a set them and leave them thing, much like armour. I never had much use case for frequently adding new attacks though for those who do this way is probably much better! Overview Back to the attacks topic: Attacks have had this design for a long time and there have been no calls for a better overview of attacks. The previous view on the equipment page was incredibly limited and largely there because it is part of equipment, but it added no value imo. If you think there are scenarios where an overview would be helpful it's possible that we show the description/content sections with a toggle if desired, but that wasn't possible on the old view either as it was limited to a 1 line textarea. If there are scenarios where an overview could help then we can discuss possible solutions, but I prefer to understand the use case before "solving" something by adding more clutter. I'm mostly looking at it from the rest of the equipment (i.e. not attacks and armour) I suppose. The 1 line text area being an expandable text field was the main benefit and allowed notes related to the items purpose, abilities or even just RP notes. Those same things don't really exist for attacks (although there were a couple of times I added a dummy item to have description/background on a shield or weapon for instance). Preferences Oh yeah, change inertia is a huge thing! I do UI design too and it's always a pain. My purpose of making the original post wasn't to say "change is bad, go back" and if that's how it came across, I apologise. I hoped that the reasoning I gave went beyond that and dealt with some of the other aspects about this change and the use-cases/workflows/playstyles that made use of the previous version; if that's not the case, I apologise again! Smaller widths I must admit, I never did this (or at least not to a size where it became problematic); another benefit of the new design :) Checking Items This is actually one of the main reasons I thought having easy viewing of the things within the sheet itself was so beneficial, it avoids the risk of accidentally decrementing stuff. Though I must admit we play with the automation turned off after a few too many instances of such accidental usage. At the end of the day, this sheet is still above and beyond the other offerings and I'm not trying to rain on the parade :) My only intention was to offer some insight into things that may be missed as, IMO, the difference in the way equipment was handled before was a boon to this sheet, not a detriment.

James M. said: Functionality-wise, the only thing was item description viewing from within the sheet itself. I guess whether you view this as functionality or aesthetics comes down to how it's used but I always found it functional. That's usability, or User Experience. Different from functionality. Functionality is simply "does it work" irrespective of how it looks. Sorry for being pedantic here, but it does matter for me to fully understand what you're describing. James M. said: I guess where I'm coming from is that I don't view equipment details as non-tabular Parts of equipment is tabular- name, weight, AC, etc. But when you start putting on fields like content and description those are not tabular and should not exist in a tabular layout. Ideally this layout would be much different, but roll20 limits a lot of what can be done. James M. said: I must admit this never bothered me; attacks were a set them and leave them thing, much like armour. I never had much use case for frequently adding new attacks though for those who do this way is probably much better! Equipment is largely set and leave it as well. For most of my games players might add another item once a session maybe. James M. said: Oh yeah, change inertia is a huge thing! I do UI design too and it's always a pain. My purpose of making the original post wasn't to say "change is bad, go back" and if that's how it came across, I apologise. I didn't intend to accuse you of it, I just wanted to address it. If you do UI Design then you deal with it as much as I do and probably understand it even a bit better. It comes up a lot on roll20 and a lot on this sheet as well so it's worth mentioning. If easy viewing is the goal then adding some kind of toggle to show the description of items is really the way to go imo. That can give you the overview you're seeking. If you agree I can add it to my issues list. Thanks for the kind words on the sheet.

6.11.2 (2016-10-24) Bug Fixes Multiattack from converted NPCs no longer has attack or damage. It also no longer has multiple extra line breaks at the end Empty actions no longer generated from converted NPCs. Attacks no longer have "attack" toggled on by default. Generate Skill button styling fixed. @Robert: I've fixed the multiattack issue and the empty line issue. I started working on other issues like the saving throws not being correct values, but those resolves as soon as I toggled the action open and closed. From what I can see this is an issue of a race condition that the proficiency bonus isn't set when these are converted. Technical details on way forward: I setup some promises, but roll20 seems to lose character context. I've asked Aaron to investigate and I'll askk Roll20 devs as well. If I can get updates to chain then I can be 100% certain that ability scores and proficiency bonus is as I expect.

FYI Any previous attacks, actions, anything with an attack that did not previously toggle the attack on will need me to upgrade it. So don't update if you need that (I presume you do). I'll try to fix this tomorrow.

Kryx said: @Dvergr Roll20, and by extension, the sheet, aren't designed to handle lots of spells. Doing so is at your own choice, but I make no promises in regards to the experience. I'll do my best, but I want to heavily caution that using that many spells will have negative consequences in performance. That's your call to use what you please though. Current Status I apologize if I'm a bit rude at times. I've got a lot going on between the sheet, moving to another country, starting a new job, starting a new campaign, etc. But that's no excuse for treating people poorly. Sorry if I come off as such and I'll try to be less hostile. Thanks again for participating in this sheet's community. (litte late responding, but been busy) The screen pic was from one of my player's characters. I'll let her know about the performance issues, but she hasn't complained about that. A lot of times when I post it is because a player(s) mention something and they don't want to post themselves. So I do so in their stead and I'm the one who gets "yelled" at. ;-P Don't worry about it. It's the internet and tone of voice gets lost. It is no big deal. I do appreciate all the hard work you do. I have donated to you in the past and I will likely do so in the future.

I did have a question about something though. A new player chose to be a Beast Master Ranger. This is the first I've had in my campaign so haven't come across this issue. I was trying to see if there is a way to automate prof bonus to beast's AC, attack and damage rolls, and proficient saving throws. I did a search, but found nothing so far on the subject.  I tried doing something like @{charactername|pb} + 13 in the AC field, but it doesn't like it. Is there a way to do this or just needs to be manually done?

Probably manually with a bonus. I can check tomorrow though

Totally nice to have suggestion (minus the read more. just a slick way of making partially visible lines fade out gracefully): <a href="http://screencast.com/t/w03HOVee" rel="nofollow">http://screencast.com/t/w03HOVee</a> <a href="https://css-tricks.com/text-fade-read-more/" rel="nofollow">https://css-tricks.com/text-fade-read-more/</a>

New thread&nbsp;<a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/4164499/5e-shaped-6-dot-11-dot-3-plus" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/4164499/5e-shaped-6-dot-11-dot-3-plus</a>