[5e Shaped] Version 8+

Can I ask what the motivation for changing how attacks/damage work was? The new method where number and type of dice are split up is much more confusing than the old method. It's also odd to me that the Attack and Damage rolls are mandatory. I know that technically there are other places for things like Grapples or Hex Damage, but those were things that I use to just stick under Attacks for my players. 

Mike said: Can I ask what the motivation for changing how attacks/damage work was? To have NPC text regenerate based on adjustments to either prof bonus, stat score, etc. Have a more consistent data model. Features, spells, and everything are written so that the damage of an attack is based on hitting, or the damage of a saving throw is based on the creature failing a save - that was not reflected in the data model. One of the advantages of this approach for example is that I can declare that saving throw damage is not multiplied on a crit. The JSON I use for spells has had the damage tied to each type as well. Have an inline editable UI that matches 5e's design with the editable fields in line where they'll appear in the output. The goal was clarity. Every person I spoke to about the model gave feedback that it was a positive change. Mike said: It's also odd to me that the Attack and Damage rolls are mandatory. See the changelog: "Attacks always have an attack roll. This has always been implied by name and and written about on the forums. If you previously had things without attacks in this section they likely belong in another section (spells, features & traits)." Most likely you were using the attack section for things that were not attacks.

All fair points, Thanks for the response. I was merely curious as it's a big change. And yes, I was most definitely using that section for things that were not technically attacks. It seemed to alleviate the problem of "Where is that at?" for me. They'll just have to finally remember these things!  Overall I think 9.0 is a big improvement. I hope my previous comment did not come across as negative. The design of the sheet over all is outstanding and an amazing improvement over the standard OGL sheet. I will say that I find entering attacks is a little more clunky overall but can understand the need. I would maybe suggest moving the "Hit" portion of an attack to it own line instead of sharing a line with the "Attack" portion. It makes reading reading and editing it much clearer. Currently it can be achieved by resizing your sheet, so I just wanted to provide examples of what I meant.   VS 

Mike said: All fair points, Thanks for the response. I was merely curious as it's a big change. And yes, I was most definitely using that section for things that were not technically attacks. It seemed to alleviate the problem of "Where is that at?" for me. They'll just have to finally remember these things Admittedly I don't have the greatest solution for something like Hex - a spell that has a lot of details that you want to repeat over and over. I have a similar long standing issue to tackle in  #9: Handle multiple rays for cases like Scorching Ray . I don't know how to solve it in the correct manner, but perhaps I'll have some inspiration. Mike said: Overall I think 9.0 is a big improvement. I hope my previous comment did not come across as negative. The design of the sheet over all is outstanding and an amazing improvement over the standard OGL sheet. Thank you very much. As you said this rework and the sheet all together are an immense amount of work, but that effort is worth it if users like you appreciate the final product. Thank you. Mike said: I will say that I find entering attacks is a little more clunky overall but can understand the need. I would maybe suggest moving the "Hit" portion of an attack to it own line instead of sharing a line with the "Attack" portion. It makes reading reading and editing it much clearer. Currently it can be achieved by resizing your sheet, so I just wanted to provide examples of what I meant.   VS  I considered that when I was working on it. NPCs don't do it which is why I leaned away from that solution, but I think you're probably right in this regard that it makes it cleaner and easier to read. I'll think it over, but will probably go this route. Would you mind creating a quick issue on my tracker so I don't forget? Thanks for your feedback. These products can really only improve with my effort and constructive criticism from the community so don't be afraid to mention adjustments that you think should be made, but also keep in mind the perception of other users who may be deciding to use this sheet or use the OGL sheet for example (the post you have above is great at balancing that).

I was wondering of any one has a good idea on how to set up traits that reference the uses of other traits. The Cleric and Paladin Channel Divinity ability is generated with basically just a number of uses. Then Turn Undead, and other abilities share those number of uses. The Monk's Ki ability also fits into this category, I believe. Is there a clever way to decrease the number of uses in one trait (Channel Divinity), when you click another (Turn Undead)?

Decreasing another section's uses would require API changes and cannot be done by a user. It's the same problem as attachers for skills have - a repeating section referencing another repeating section and how to display that on the sheet. I skirt around this with ammo by forcing the name to match, but that's not really the ideal solution.

OK, thanks for the reply Kryx.

John S. said: I was wondering of any one has a good idea on how to set up traits that reference the uses of other traits. The Cleric and Paladin Channel Divinity ability is generated with basically just a number of uses. Then Turn Undead, and other abilities share those number of uses. The Monk's Ki ability also fits into this category, I believe. Is there a clever way to decrease the number of uses in one trait (Channel Divinity), when you click another (Turn Undead)? You can use the freeform field to at least call Channel Divinity whenever you use one of the other options (put in an empty line, followed by the %{Charname|repeating_trait_-ABC123_trait} ability call for Channel Divinity). It produces a bit of chat spam, but at least it will deduct uses without having to use an additional script.

Okay, so assuming you don't want to delete the whole text line etc. Would this be a feasible middle ground? I feel like the image below is just nicer on the eyes and less jarring to see the rolls yanked from one side. This seems to convey the information you're after more quickly and in a more appealing way. (to me at least) I don't know about you. This way it reads a bit better for what the Dagger is, All further needed information is just to the right of the important stuff.

Saevar L. "Liquid-Sonic" said: *snip* That actually looks really good. 

Jakob said: Saevar L. "Liquid-Sonic" said: *snip* That actually looks really good.  I second that. This is very readable and informative.

The desires differ. I'm looking to align the content in 3 areas: The way it is edited on the sheet, the way it is presented on the sheet, and the way it is presented in the output when used. You're looking to make the output as concise as possible. Those goals inherently clash. The type does not fit to the right like that for even slightly longer names like "Heavy Crossbow". The same happens with descriptors like "Vicious". Recharge and cost also fill that same space.

Saevar L. "Liquid-Sonic" said: I'm ok with this. maybe move "Melee Weapon Attack" under the title, as a subheader (not sure if subheader is used for something else).

Kryx said: The desires differ. I'm looking to align the output with the way it is edited and the way it is shown on the sheet. You're looking to make it as concise as possible. Those goals inherently clash. The type does not fit to the right like that for even slightly longer names like "Heavy Crossbow". The same happens with descriptors like "Vicious". Ah right it doesn't align well :P Fair enough. I see now what you mean, you want it the same way as data goes in, fair enough. I'll find a work around. Admitly it can't be too hard to just comment it out myself. Shit out of luck then, either way thanks for considering it and replying!

So after some extensive testing, I converted my current campaign (~100 NPCs & 5 PCs) from 7.12.2 to 9.0.1 and it went very smoothly.  Great job, will let you know the feedback from my group once we play on Friday. My group doesn't like change much, though after minor grumblings they typically roll with it.  If I were to guess, they will have concerns similar to Saevar about how "chatty" the roll templates are.  There are a couple of other minor things that they will need to relearn, but all in all I expect it to be smooth.

How should we handle equipment that force saving throws? In a campaign I play in, we have weapons and equipment that force the target to make a save rather than using an attack roll. Some of them even have ammo.  I don't currently see a way of handling that well. The attacks section can no longer handle that part (meaning we have to keep track of ammo manually), the equipment section would require that we format everything ourselves, features and traits is not an appropriate section for this to be honest, and it certainly doesn't belong in spells. This is a massive step back in functionality for my group, and we'd really love it if we got the option of having saves without attack rolls in the attacks section (or some other way of handling this). Specifically, we need a way to have a piece of equipment force a saving throw, while also expending ammo. Thank you for your time.

alexander h. said: How should we handle equipment that force saving throws? In a campaign I play in, we have weapons and equipment that force the target to make a save rather than using an attack roll. Some of them even have ammo.  I don't currently see a way of handling that well. The attacks section can no longer handle that part (meaning we have to keep track of ammo manually), the equipment section would require that we format everything ourselves, features and traits is not an appropriate section for this to be honest, and it certainly doesn't belong in spells. This is a massive step back in functionality for my group, and we'd really love it if we got the option of having saves without attack rolls in the attacks section (or some other way of handling this). Specifically, we need a way to have a piece of equipment force a saving throw, while also expending ammo. Thank you for your time. Are these custom made items/weapons?  I don't know of any WotC official items that do this. It might help if you give an specific example.  As it stands it sounds like a custom thing, and using Kryx's term makes it an 'edge case'. I think it is appropriate to evaluate if this is a personal request for something custom about your own game, or if this would help the community in general.

alexander h. said: How should we handle equipment that force saving throws? In a campaign I play in, we have weapons and equipment that force the target to make a save rather than using an attack roll. Some of them even have ammo. Specifically, we need a way to have a piece of equipment force a saving throw, while also expending ammo. As Mark B. wrote the usage to the community as a whole does play into how this addressed. My first goal is to make the sheet better able to handle the game as it exists. That can sometimes impact houserules, but I try to not limit those too much. I assume this is some houserule that uses saving throws instead of attacks? I wonder if  Players Roll All The Dice - Attacking and Defending is what you're after. But instead of using a defense check you're perhaps using a dexterity saving throw? You can make it work by using attacks and just ignoring the attack if you really wanted. I do want to support houserules as much as I can as I use quite a few myself, but there will always be a limit. Whether this is over that limit or not depends on the details. Specific examples would help.

Mark B. said: alexander h. said: How should we handle equipment that force saving throws? In a campaign I play in, we have weapons and equipment that force the target to make a save rather than using an attack roll. Some of them even have ammo.  I don't currently see a way of handling that well. The attacks section can no longer handle that part (meaning we have to keep track of ammo manually), the equipment section would require that we format everything ourselves, features and traits is not an appropriate section for this to be honest, and it certainly doesn't belong in spells. This is a massive step back in functionality for my group, and we'd really love it if we got the option of having saves without attack rolls in the attacks section (or some other way of handling this). Specifically, we need a way to have a piece of equipment force a saving throw, while also expending ammo. Thank you for your time. Are these custom made items/weapons?  I don't know of any WotC official items that do this. It might help if you give an specific example.  As it stands it sounds like a custom thing, and using Kryx's term makes it an 'edge case'. I think it is appropriate to evaluate if this is a personal request for something custom about your own game, or if this would help the community in general. Some wands work like this. Wand of Fireballs just casts fireball , so it's (arguably) better to just use the spell. But the  Wand of Paralysis does not even reference a spell. From what I understand, expending ammo is not the crucial part, and charges could be used in its stead. And it's true that equipment does not allow you to output nicely-formatted saving throw DCs (or damage).

A potential example may be something like an exploding arrow or even a poison spray? Something that is equipment, has ammo-like uses but requires no attack roll. Whilst I don't believe any WotC stuff uses this I can certainly understand it not being uncommon as a custom item (I've certainly considered things like that). Previously I would just have unticked the attack box but in the new sheet I'd just ignore the attack roll if needed.

Jakob said: Some wands work like this. Wand of Fireballs just casts fireball , so it's (arguably) better to just use the spell. But the  Wand of Paralysis does not even reference a spell. From what I understand, expending ammo is not the crucial part, and charges could be used in its stead. And it's true that equipment does not allow you to output nicely-formatted saving throw DCs. Equipment is on my list to expand. Potion of healing is a good example of healing, wand of paralysis is now a good example of a saving throw. I've created  #168: Expand Equipment to address this. Feel free to expand it with other cases.

Athleon said: Saevar L. "Liquid-Sonic" said: I'm ok with this. maybe move "Melee Weapon Attack" under the title, as a subheader (not sure if subheader is used for something else). I like this idea.

Equipment that uses saving throws: ball bearings, chain, hunting trap, etc.

Another piece of equipment that uses saves is the bombs, grenades, and dynamite found on page 267 of the DMG. Specifically, the campaign in question uses a homebrew D&D Modern system based on 5e, where your sheet has been absolutely amazing so far.  The items in question are shotguns (Dex saves to avoid damage. Gives shotguns a unique niche) and various forms of grenades. Having shotguns as attacks on the old sheet works really well, because it supports the saves and ammo very easily. Having them as equipment would be less convenient, but it's acceptable seeing as we can just put those things at the top of the equipment box and they can have a number of uses on them. I'd prefer having the option of "save only" attacks, but will gladly accept expanded equipment covering this. Pushing the current version of the sheet WILL break a campaign I'm participating in at the moment, however we can work around that for the moment until we have a proper way of doing things.

I only need 1 example of each type for equipment. Heal and Saving throw for equipment definitely exist. Expanded equipment will come - probably soon. I tried to move "Attacks" down to "Equipment" for PCs before, but people weren't too keen on the idea. As we can see here there is definitely some crossover as "Attacks" are basically "Weapons". Additionally equipment items could use ammo too. The divide between "Attacks" ("Weapons") and "Equipment" seems like it shouldn't exist.

9.0.1 published to roll20 Awaiting their release tomorrow. 9.1.0 roll templates: I worked on them a bit and came up with this: I hope that'll satisfy the desire to have the main components (attack roll, or damage roll) fully left aligned and easy to parse out while also keeping the relevant information.

Kryx said: I only need 1 example of each type for equipment. Heal and Saving throw for equipment definitely exist. Expanded equipment will come - probably soon. I tried to move "Attacks" down to "Equipment" for PCs before, but people weren't too keen on the idea. As we can see here there is definitely some crossover as "Attacks" are basically "Weapons". Additionally equipment items could use ammo too. The divide between "Attacks" ("Weapons") and "Equipment" seems like it shouldn't exist. For me the only real benefit of having them separate is quick access/visibility to attacks rather them getting lost in the midst of the rest of equipment. Also you tend to want to see different information for attacks vs most other equipment (attack stats vs description). But I don't see that either of those things prevents it being a single section that can perhaps be divided into two sub-sections + have section display toggles for each item.

Lucian said: For me the only real benefit of having them separate is quick access/visibility to attacks rather them getting lost in the midst of the rest of equipment. Also you tend to want to see different information for attacks vs most other equipment (attack stats vs description). But I don't see that either of those things prevents it being a single section that can perhaps be divided into two sub-sections + have section display toggles for each item. Sorry, to clarify: I don't mean to suggest combining them in to 1 repeating section. Basically there is usable equipment: (weapons, healing potions, wands, etc), and there is mundane equipment (rope, waterskin, rations, etc). Those should be different sections as they are now, but I wonder if we should leave mundane equipment as it is and convert "Attacks" into usable equipment. After that the visual location issue arises. While Usable Equipment is more important than spells which is more important than mundane equipment having such a divide between the two equipment sections feels wrong.

Kryx said: 9.0.1 published to roll20 Awaiting their release tomorrow. 9.1.0 roll templates: I worked on them a bit and came up with this: I hope that'll satisfy the desire to have the main components (attack roll, or damage roll) fully left aligned and easy to parse out while also keeping the relevant information. Perfection!

Mike said: Kryx said: 9.0.1 published to roll20 Awaiting their release tomorrow. 9.1.0 roll templates: I worked on them a bit and came up with this: I hope that'll satisfy the desire to have the main components (attack roll, or damage roll) fully left aligned and easy to parse out while also keeping the relevant information. Perfection! I can dig it. :-)

I feel like the inline rolls in the content field do a good enough job for healing potions and all kind of other "usable equipment". Just roll them in the chat, and you get all the info you need.

Kryx said: Lucian said: For me the only real benefit of having them separate is quick access/visibility to attacks rather them getting lost in the midst of the rest of equipment. Also you tend to want to see different information for attacks vs most other equipment (attack stats vs description). But I don't see that either of those things prevents it being a single section that can perhaps be divided into two sub-sections + have section display toggles for each item. Sorry, to clarify: I don't mean to suggest combining them in to 1 repeating section. Basically there is usable equipment: (weapons, healing potions, wands, etc), and there is mundane equipment (rope, waterskin, rations, etc). Those should be different sections as they are now, but I wonder if we should leave mundane equipment as it is and convert "Attacks" into usable equipment. After that the visual location issue arises. While Usable Equipment is more important than spells which is more important than mundane equipment having such a divide between the two equipment sections feels wrong. I feel like spells could go above all of the equipment, as the classes who use equipment a lot either has no or little spellcasting, so it wouldn't take up much space for the classes that have both but mostly use attacks. Plus, the spells section is pretty condensed as it is, anyway. I do feel like the "usable equipment" vs "non-usable equipment" is a good one, and a better one than "attacks" vs "equipment" which, as you noted, is mostly "weapons" vs "equipment" anyway.

zerosius said: I feel like the inline rolls in the content field do a good enough job for healing potions and all kind of other "usable equipment". Just roll them in the chat, and you get all the info you need. They don't though. See  Wand of Paralysis or the other saving throw items mentioned above. Equipment needs to handle at least healing and saving throw.

Kryx said: Hi Joss, 7.12.2 is quite stable as far as I'm aware. I'd suggest sending me an invite so I can see what is wrong with your campaign. 9.0.0 won't release to non-pros for a while. Quite a fair amount to work through. How would I send you an invite? The two issues I'm having is that the advantage/disadvantage/normal/roll 2 feature isn't working on NPC sheets, and I cannot get NPC sheets to whisper to GM.

You know, I think I fixed it. It looks like I had two NPC sheets that had the same name, so the system was grabbing the "settings" tab of one and not the other. Odd ...

zerosius said: I feel like the inline rolls in the content field do a good enough job for healing potions and all kind of other "usable equipment". Just roll them in the chat, and you get all the info you need. If they handle those well enough, they would also be adequate for attack rolls with weapons. I doubt anyone would argue that.

alexander h. said: If they handle those well enough, they would also be adequate for attack rolls with weapons. I doubt anyone would argue that. There are some who still prefer the community sheet. ;)

Kryx said: alexander h. said: If they handle those well enough, they would also be adequate for attack rolls with weapons. I doubt anyone would argue that. There are some who still prefer the community sheet. ;) Fair point. Also, I just had an idea. What if instead of expanding Equipment to support saves and healing, you instead add a section like attacks for each of those? And you could hide it outside of edit mode if there's no entries in that section, like you do with resistances, etc. I don't know if that's possible with repeating sections. The benefit would be that those items are automatically grouped, making it easier to get an overview of what options you have. Figuring out if you have a healing item would be much faster, and remembering what options you have for targeting different defenses is faster as well. I don't see much downside here, but other people will have different points of view. How does this sound? Is it even possible? If not, would a toggle in edit mode be a better option?

Dvergr76 said: Mike said: Kryx said: 9.0.1 published to roll20 Awaiting their release tomorrow. 9.1.0 roll templates: I worked on them a bit and came up with this: I hope that'll satisfy the desire to have the main components (attack roll, or damage roll) fully left aligned and easy to parse out while also keeping the relevant information. Perfection! I can dig it. :-) Kryx man... you're a beast... And we are all the beauty ;_;

alexander h. said: Fair point. I was being sarcastic. :P I can't understand why anyone would prefer to manually setup everything. alexander h. said: Also, I just had an idea. What if instead of expanding Equipment to support saves and healing, you instead add a section like attacks for each of those? And you could hide it outside of edit mode if there's no entries in that section, like you do with resistances, etc. I don't know if that's possible with repeating sections. The benefit would be that those items are automatically grouped, making it easier to get an overview of what options you have. Figuring out if you have a healing item would be much faster, and remembering what options you have for targeting different defenses is faster as well. I don't see much downside here, but other people will have different points of view. How does this sound? Is it even possible? If not, would a toggle in edit mode be a better option? Ideas usually work best when I have free time to think of them so I'm not sure what the best solution is yet. Adding a section just for saves and one for healing doesn't really compartmentalize items in the best manner. I think weapons, acid vials, and alchemist's fire belong together. The Attacks section fits those, but if you look at the UA artificer you have little fire bombs that target an area that likely also fall into that category. Other ideas: "Useful" equipment: Potions, wands, perhaps the current Attacks section? Mundane equipment I'd like to avoid creating categories that are too specific. Perhaps 3 at most (Mundane, weapons/attacks, and ___)

Kryx said: alexander h. said: Fair point. I was being sarcastic. :P I can't understand why anyone would prefer to manually setup everything. alexander h. said: Also, I just had an idea. What if instead of expanding Equipment to support saves and healing, you instead add a section like attacks for each of those? And you could hide it outside of edit mode if there's no entries in that section, like you do with resistances, etc. I don't know if that's possible with repeating sections. The benefit would be that those items are automatically grouped, making it easier to get an overview of what options you have. Figuring out if you have a healing item would be much faster, and remembering what options you have for targeting different defenses is faster as well. I don't see much downside here, but other people will have different points of view. How does this sound? Is it even possible? If not, would a toggle in edit mode be a better option? Ideas usually work best when I have free time to think of them so I'm not sure what the best solution is yet. Adding a section just for saves and one for healing doesn't really compartmentalize items in the best manner. I think weapons, acid vials, and alchemist's fire belong together. The Attacks section fits those, but if you look at the UA artificer you have little fire bombs that target an area that likely also fall into that category. Other ideas: "Useful" equipment: Potions, wands, perhaps the current Attacks section? Mundane equipment I'd like to avoid creating categories that are too specific. Perhaps 3 at most (Mundane, weapons/attacks, and ___) Yeah, I definitely get your meaning. It was just an idea that popped into my head while working out, and I'd rather share it than not. Useful vs mundane equipment would definitely suit my personal needs. I'm not too keen on the name, but I can't really think of a better one. Equipment actions, maybe? useful or usable equipment has unintended connotations, at least in my mind.  But I'm really glad you're listening to feedback, it's very much appreciated :) This sheet has got to be the best one I've tried so far. Love your work, and love the community interaction. 

Jakob said: John S. said: I was wondering of any one has a good idea on how to set up traits that reference the uses of other traits. The Cleric and Paladin Channel Divinity ability is generated with basically just a number of uses. Then Turn Undead, and other abilities share those number of uses. The Monk's Ki ability also fits into this category, I believe. Is there a clever way to decrease the number of uses in one trait (Channel Divinity), when you click another (Turn Undead)? You can use the freeform field to at least call Channel Divinity whenever you use one of the other options (put in an empty line, followed by the %{Charname|repeating_trait_-ABC123_trait} ability call for Channel Divinity). It produces a bit of chat spam, but at least it will deduct uses without having to use an additional script. That is a great idea. Thanks Jakob!

Kryx said: 9.1.0 roll templates: I worked on them a bit and came up with this: I hope that'll satisfy the desire to have the main components (attack roll, or damage roll) fully left aligned and easy to parse out while also keeping the relevant information. Now that is an in-line that I could learn to love! Looks good, thanks Kryx.

Am I doing something wrong? Set my campaign from 7.12.1 [Custom] to use the live shaped.  This changed the char sheet to 7.12.2 Also removed the custom shaped API and added the live shaped My campaign is, 40 hours later, still on 7.12.2  - why?

Jim W. said: Am I doing something wrong? Set my campaign from 7.12.1 [Custom] to use the live shaped.  This changed the char sheet to 7.12.2 Also removed the custom shaped API and added the live shaped My campaign is, 40 hours later, still on 7.12.2  - why? Roll20 hasn't accepted the pull request yet, unlike what usually happens on Monday evenings (probably MM related). 9.0.1 won't be going live until they do. 

Jim W. said: Am I doing something wrong? Set my campaign from 7.12.1 [Custom] to use the live shaped.  This changed the char sheet to 7.12.2 Also removed the custom shaped API and added the live shaped My campaign is, 40 hours later, still on 7.12.2  - why? Kryx has pushed his update to Github, roll20 then has to update those to their internal system. There is no specific time this happens, its whenever roll20 chooses to do it. Kryx has done the half he has control over, it's up to roll20 to do the rest.

Sorry my main point was why did I not get 9.0.0?

Jim W. said: Sorry my main point was why did I not get 9.0.0? We just told you. Kryx has sent the code to roll20 but they haven't loaded it into their system yet. It will come whenever roll20 loads it in.

So no-one has yet got 9.0.0 via Roll20?  Sorry I was thinking people had, and that therefore I was doing something wrong.

Jim W. said: So no-one has yet got 9.0.0 via Roll20?  Sorry I was thinking people had, and that therefore I was doing something wrong. The only people that currently have 9.0.0+ are using the code direct from Kryx's github page as a Custom sheet. And no worries :)