[Paizo] Pathfinder Playtest Bug Thread

The -4 for untrained seems to still be -2 for weapons.  It works right for skills and AC though.

I added some custom CSS code to the chat log using Stylebot (Chrome) or Stylish (Firefox) because the chat text just seems way to big and way too spaced out.  I wouldn't call it a bug just more of it's too bit to fit a spell on the screen. div.sheet-highlighted.sheet-split.sheet-roll {     height: 0;     font-size: 11px; } div.sheet-highlighted.sheet-split.sheet-r1name {     height: 0;     font-size: 12px;     font-weight: bold;     font-family: Roboto; } div.sheet-highlighted.sheet-across.sheet-notes-row {     font-size: 10px; } span.sheet-across.sheet-attack-label {     font-size: 12px; } span.inlinerollresult.showtip.tipsy-n-right {     font-size: 20px; } span.sheet-notes {     font-size: 12px;     font-weight: bold;     font-family: Roboto; } div.sheet-highlighted.sheet-across.sheet-notes-row span {     font-size: 11px; }

A new Errata update came out earlier today. Not much in changes. We just need to add another line to note what Heritage we have taken along with our Ancestry I think. <a href="http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgaz?Forging-the-Heroes-of-Undarin" rel="nofollow">http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgaz?Forging-the-Heroes-of-Undarin</a>

Good morning Pathfinders, Today, the Pathfinder Playtest sheet was updated with a long overdue feature. Here's the details: PF playtest v0.011539090000 New Features The NPC sheet is finally here! The NPC sheet is also being used as a test bed for some potential fixes for the lag seen on the PC sheet, please let me know how the NPC sheet performs for you. The NPC sheet supports selectable action economy that will also be noted in the roll template. Depending on the response to this feature, it may come to the PC sheet as well. Known Issues Spell casters with access to 10th level spells will see broken level 1 spells appear. These will be surrounded by a red border and generated every time the sheet is opened. We know what the issue is and are working on a fix. I've been busy getting this ready for release, but I'll be going back through the posts over the next few days to look for bug reports that I missed and/or haven't been fixed. Please let me know what you think of the NPC sheet and specifically give me feedback on how it performs so that I can evaluate how well the potential lag fixes work. -Scott

42nfl19 said: A new Errata update came out earlier today. Not much in changes. We just need to add another line to note what Heritage we have taken along with our Ancestry I think. <a href="http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgaz?Forging-the-Heroes-of-Undarin" rel="nofollow">http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgaz?Forging-the-Heroes-of-Undarin</a> I probably won't be changing this as all of the heritages (except for the half-x) are simply adjective &nbsp; ancestry , and for the half ones it's probably more proper to say that you are a half-elf rather than a human with half-elf. I would simply put them in the ancestry field as Half-elf, Cavern Elf, Inflammable Goblin (which i was reminded actually means the opposite of what the buffs give ;) ), etc.

Scott C. said: 42nfl19 said: A new Errata update came out earlier today. Not much in changes. We just need to add another line to note what Heritage we have taken along with our Ancestry I think. <a href="http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgaz?Forging-the-Heroes-of-Undarin" rel="nofollow">http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgaz?Forging-the-Heroes-of-Undarin</a> I probably won't be changing this as all of the heritages (except for the half-x) are simply adjective &nbsp; ancestry , and for the half ones it's probably more proper to say that you are a half-elf rather than a human with half-elf. I would simply put them in the ancestry field as Half-elf, Cavern Elf, Inflammable Goblin (which i was reminded actually means the opposite of what the buffs give ;) ), etc. I guess you are right but by adding a separate line, it could future proof the sheet in case of weird naming conventions they might come up with. But yeah, no change is needed for now, it is not game breaking/necessary.

Is there a way to give a bulk bonus to skills? I'm specifically talking about Clever Improviser and Incredible Improviser human feats. I'd rather not have to add every untrained skill I have to a buff.

Scott C. said: I've been busy getting this ready for release, but I'll be going back through the posts over the next few days to look for bug reports that I missed and/or haven't been fixed. Please let me know what you think of the NPC sheet and specifically give me feedback on how it performs so that I can evaluate how well the potential lag fixes work. -Scott I have been taking the time slip in several abilities and entries into the NPC sheet and I am happy to report, that on firefox the npc sheet seems quite fluid and responsive. I am noticing neither lag spikes, long delays or scrolling lag. So you seem to be on the path of being able to eliminate the previous lag issues in the sheet! I have not had a lot of time to test the full functionality, but a few quick notes is that it is not the easiest to read in some regards. For instance, observe the top of this image. The Spell header, like 'attacks' or 'speed.' is not very intuitively placed. As it ends up hidden on the right side of the spell tradition. It thus took me a bit to locate it. Furthermore, it lists the spells in reverse order, the stronger spells show up first. This can be a hassle as one reaches for lower level spells more often than high level ones. Lastly, the npc sheet so far seems to be a bit inconsistent in how it separates it's topics. Before attacks, speed has a very clear thick black line. But below that the only thick lines, happen when you place in a second ability within a field. Like between those two test level 10 spells. This occurs between everything, like&nbsp; multiple attack or power entries. These are all just visual things, however. Function predates ease of access. And so far the function seems to be working.

I don't really know much about the API, but it seems the attacher for the Attack macro isn't working, though the attacher for Feats does work properly. I tested with {{r1name=test1}} {{r1=[[1d4]]}} {{notes=test2}} and they all worked for a Feat macro, but not an Attack macro. I checked through the code on github and I think @{attacher} is just missing from a few templates? I'd also love to see more roll options for the templates even if they are only accessible by the attacher (r2,r3,etc. don't seem to be implemented for any macro templates).

Thanks Jason, I got reports of this yesterday right after the PR went live. I'll get it fixed for next week.

All feats seem to come with attack and damage rolls (and the attack roll always results in 0 no matter what?) ...this might be due to me doing something wrong. If so, I'd like to know how to stop that.

Is there a way to increase Spell damage and Spell Attack via MODS section? Like using the Line: "+1 to attack" But for spells rather than weapon attacks.

Thanks to whoever made this sheet so fast. I've unfortunately found a mistake. Expert&nbsp; proficiency is [Level +1]; this means it is +2 for first level characters. If you put in expert fortitude it only adds +1 even when selecting expert proficiency. Trained is character level so it should be 1, thus the trained skills are out by -1. From page 291 of the Playtest Manual. Also note that trained in armor means a +1 to the AC but you&nbsp; don't double dip for shields. Hope this helps.

Brunttest . said: Thanks to whoever made this sheet so fast. I've unfortunately found a mistake. Expert&nbsp; proficiency is [Level +1]; this means it is +2 for first level characters. If you put in expert fortitude it only adds +1 even when selecting expert proficiency. Trained is character level so it should be 1, thus the trained skills are out by -1. From page 291 of the Playtest Manual. Also note that trained in armor means a +1 to the AC but you&nbsp; don't double dip for shields. Hope this helps. I don't quite understand. Everything seems to be working among the skills. &nbsp;20 for the roll, 9 for the level, 2 for the master, 4 for ability mod, and 2 from an item. &nbsp;Here we have 15 for the roll, -4 for the untrained, and 3 for the ability mod. For armor, it seems to be considering the lowest prof between armor and shield if you input it correctly. And being trained in armor does not give you +1 to ac unless what you are saying is that that is what is happening and is wrong.

Hi Brunttest, I'm glad you like the sheet. I am unable to replicate your issue with the proficiencies. Can you make sure that you have a level entered? I also noticed that you asked about how to handle armor in another thread. I'll direct you to this earlier post .

Regarding the Resonance Test: From the blog post on 10/15, the updates to the Resonance mechanic are updated for the Raiders of Shrieking Peak. As there has not been an official change to the playtest as a whole and we are doing our best to represent the functionality of the full playtest, we have no plans to update the Resonance mechanic at this time. If you are looking to play the updated Raiders of Shrieking Peak module or otherwise use the new resonance and focus point system, you can adjust your spell points to reflect what your focus points would be instead by setting the ability score for it to be based on to your charisma and creating a buff like so: This will set your rp to 10 regardless of level/ability score and set your spell points to what your focus points should be based on the resonance test rules. Happy pathfinding, Scott

This might have been mentioned before but is it possible to add another category under feats/powers? As of right now I am putting Class Features under Class Feats. It would be a nice organizational thing to have Class Features in addition to Class Feats. Does not help that both sound similar.

Jam said: All feats seem to come with attack and damage rolls (and the attack roll always results in 0 no matter what?) ...this might be due to me doing something wrong. If so, I'd like to know how to stop that. +1 to this. It's been happening for a few weeks now and is rather distracting... Lots of "Wait, you got a crit with Detect Magic? What does that mean?" and "I don't think Grease is supposed to do damage." Seems to happen for all of my players' feats/spells/powers, but doesn't happen for monsters/NPCs.

Very sorry, thank you

There is a bug on the sheet where it does not display save rolls for spells, instead shows attack even though attack hasn't been set for the spells.

Hey, i found a bug in the NPC sheet when rolling skills. It seems that negative bonus are ignored. Example 1: Athleticsroll for a NPC with STR-Mod 1 and sum of all PROF -3 (for example lvl 1 untrained character), general skill @{generic_skill_mod} is empty or 0 Current Roll: 1d20+ 0 [Bonus]+1 [Dex] Expected Roll: 1d20+ -3 [Bonus]+1 [Str] Example 2: Athleticsroll for a NPC with STR-Mod 1, athletics skill @{athletics} is empty, general skill @{generic_skill_mod} is -3 Current: In case that general skill is a negative number, nothing happens when you want to roll a skill check. Expected: 1d20+ -3 [Bonus]+1 [Str] The value for the attribute bonus (in this case +1 because of Str) is correct, but it says always Dex instead of the correct attribute modifier. This is just a visual bug! (For Athletics, Line 4454 on GitHub, [Dex] is hardcoded (probably copy paste error))

Are there any plans to make a more simplified Playtest Character Sheet? One where maybe we can just manually insert bonuses and press a button to make the roll? Because this sheet and the lack of any comprehensible organized set of instructions has made it a time sink of epic proportions. Trying to figure out how to add simple bonuses to items. Is there a guide I'm missing or something? Or does anyone know of a tutorial video that might help?

Hello!&nbsp; Please include a 'mods' tab in the attack entries. Having everything tied to a players +1 magic composite shortbow&nbsp;in the attack entry, save the '+1 item to attack', is a bit frustrating. It adds needless steps to get that modifier to apply, and only having it in the equipment section means it ends up applying itself to all attacks. This means if the player draws their longsword in the middle of combat, they have to go to the equipment tab, set the shortbow to carry, and the sword to equipped, then roll the attacks when the most expedient thing would be to just click on the attacks. It's an unnecessary step to an already horribly unintuitive sheet.&nbsp;

DM Doom said: Hello!&nbsp; Please include a 'mods' tab in the attack entries. Having everything tied to a players +1 magic composite shortbow&nbsp;in the attack entry, save the '+1 item to attack', is a bit frustrating. It adds needless steps to get that modifier to apply, and only having it in the equipment section means it ends up applying itself to all attacks. This means if the player draws their longsword in the middle of combat, they have to go to the equipment tab, set the shortbow to carry, and the sword to equipped, then roll the attacks when the most expedient thing would be to just click on the attacks. It's an unnecessary step to an already horribly unintuitive sheet.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure it already factors in the magic item bonus into the attack in the attack sheet. You know there's a 'potency' box in the attack section, right?

For the Roll20 developers, I do have to say that after using this sheet design since it was released, I have to agree with all the comments stating that the sheet is not intuitive. The underlying concept of both this and the Starfinder sheet is good because the mods options add an enormous amount of flexibility to the sheet, but to be honest I don't want to have to read an instruction manual for both the RPG I'm playing and for the sheet I'm filling out. I don't think the basic sintax of the mods is difficult to learn, but it did take me what I feel was a good deal of unnecessary time. When put alongside something like the official sheet for first edition Pathfinder, I can't help but feel like one is clearly more suited to people just learning to use both the Roll20 system and to play Pathfinder. Especially considering the more intuitive character creation style Paizo is attempting to implement for the second edition of Pathfinder, it seems rediculous to me that it took me a week to get fully comfortable using this sheet and to get one character created. I can do it faster now, but my first Pathfinder character on the first edition sheet took me an hour or two. Now I know that mods are being planned for the first edition sheet, but I'm hoping that they'll be a more advanced feature rather than the core method of adding bonuses from items or anything else. When I'm teaching new people to play this game, I want to be able to just tell them "Now add a new item for your armor, set it to Light Armor and put in the AC and TAC bonuses into their respective fields. Then set the quality to expert and the potency rune to +1." You don't need a field for every single thing in the universe, as people are going to want to learn to use those mods for other things such as class featurlike a Barbarian's Rage, or for conditions. But when I'm making my first character it would be very nice to just be able to put everything in without having to learn all of the sintax all at once while I'm also trying to keep my character details strait.

Jam said: DM Doom said: Hello!&nbsp; Please include a 'mods' tab in the attack entries. Having everything tied to a players +1 magic composite shortbow&nbsp;in the attack entry, save the '+1 item to attack', is a bit frustrating. It adds needless steps to get that modifier to apply, and only having it in the equipment section means it ends up applying itself to all attacks. This means if the player draws their longsword in the middle of combat, they have to go to the equipment tab, set the shortbow to carry, and the sword to equipped, then roll the attacks when the most expedient thing would be to just click on the attacks. It's an unnecessary step to an already horribly unintuitive sheet.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure it already factors in the magic item bonus into the attack in the attack sheet. You know there's a 'potency' box in the attack section, right? Yeah, and it increases the die damage, sure, but it doesn't do anything to the attack bonus.

The attack bonus from the weapon being expeert and the bonus from the potency rune don't stack because they are both item bonuses. If the potency rune was +2 the bonus would increase, but a +1 expert weapon would not get an additional bonus from the rune. It's just like a +1 weapon in first edition did not also get the +1 tto attack roles from the weapon being masterwork.

Yo, last developer update in this thread, and reasonably assumed on the sheet, was a -month- ago. Recent changes to the playtest have been feat/class wise instead of mechanics, but are we ever going to get the improved spell sheets for PCs?

Sheet is still showing/rolling for Attack and Damage for feats, power, spells even if you don't input them. Also even if you have saves, it does not show either. Not sure if it is specifically me, but I also can't change the ability mod for the save or what type, fort, will, or ref. I get a blank drop down box.

42nfl19, same thing for me :/

I doubt we'll see any fixes.They're waiting until Full Release, which is likely several months away still.

I do hope to see a completely different style of sheet for the full release. I can understand this sheet design for Starfinder to a point, especially with ship combat, but for the relative simplicity of second edition Pathfinder there is really no good reason to base it all on the somewhat non-intuitive self-created mods system. They really should be a more advanced feature rather than the core way to enter things into the sheet.

So I'll just assume there will be no fixes until it's released in August? There's literally a couple of bugs, which bug me out of playing the game. There is a bug on the sheet where it does not display save rolls for spells, instead shows attack even though attack hasn't been set for the spells.

Hi Everyone, I just wanted to add to what Dean posted. I apologize for the length of time since the last update. I should have an update out next week to fix the ability chat rolls.

Question: I've got a player who took the Toughness feat. I'm trying to implement it in the sheet, but I can't seem to figure out a way to have the sheet automatically reference the character's level and add it to the hp max value. Is there a way to do this?

BurningBagel said: Question: I've got a player who took the Toughness feat. I'm trying to implement it in the sheet, but I can't seem to figure out a way to have the sheet automatically reference the character's level and add it to the hp max value. Is there a way to do this? I use&nbsp;+@{character_level} to hp_max

42nfl19 said: I use&nbsp;+@{character_level} to hp_max That worked! Thanks!

Hi Folks, Minor bug fix update went live with the playtest sheet today. Pathfinder Playtest V0.011545141600 Bug Fixes Fix for Saves not showing and attack/damage always showing. The sheet will convert the necessary checkboxes to the new values automatically on load. Once again, I want to apologize for the length of time it took to get this done. I also want to answer the question that has come up since I haven't been as responsive lately. The plan is to continue to support the sheet with bug fixes as needed, so please let me know if anything else is functioning incorrectly. In the future I'll be aiming to get fixes out in a more timely manner. While new features are extremely unlikely to come to the playtest sheet, your comments and suggestions are very important as they will help to shape the sheet for Pathfinder 2.

Will secret rolls be a future feature? Or as of right now due to "engine/roll20" limitations are they not feasible/possible?

I've had issues where the skills page on the Pathfinder Sheet have wrong modifiers. The confusing thing is it doesn't seem to be just with some modifiers, but skills like Acrobatics, Climb, disable device, escape artis, fly, all have this +7 bonus that shouldn't be there (and if it's the dex or str bonus, it should be +4 or +2, respectively). Any thoughts? This is on the 1.73 sheet.

Joshua W. said: I've had issues where the skills page on the Pathfinder Sheet have wrong modifiers. The confusing thing is it doesn't seem to be just with some modifiers, but skills like Acrobatics, Climb, disable device, escape artis, fly, all have this +7 bonus that shouldn't be there (and if it's the dex or str bonus, it should be +4 or +2, respectively). Any thoughts? This is on the 1.73 sheet. What kind of stats do you have? For example, I created a fresh new level one character. Level 1, Zero ability modfiers, untrained in all skills. Therefor I get a -3 to all skills. [Level+Ability Mod+Proff Modifier] = [1+0+-4] = -3.

Joshua W. said: I've had issues where the skills page on the Pathfinder Sheet have wrong modifiers. The confusing thing is it doesn't seem to be just with some modifiers, but skills like Acrobatics, Climb, disable device, escape artis, fly, all have this +7 bonus that shouldn't be there (and if it's the dex or str bonus, it should be +4 or +2, respectively). Any thoughts? This is on the 1.73 sheet. Hi Joshua. Based on the version number and skill names you're referencing, I'm guessing that you are referring to the Pathfinder (1e) community created sheet instead of the Pathfinder playtest sheet which is for the playtest of 2e. The thread for the community created sheet can be found here . However, I will mention some things to consider for what might be causing this are how many ranks do you have in a given skill and are any of these class skills?

There is a bug on weapon attack rolls, not calculating the weapons quality properly. Standard gives nothing Expert gives nothing Master gives nothing Legendary gives +1

Marko, does your weapon have a potency rune on it? Potency and quality don't stack.

Even if a legendary longsword has a +1 potency rune on it, you should still be getting a +3 to attack rolls based on its Legendary quality, as both are item bonuses, and you always apply the better of the two bonuses.

Correct, and that is what the sheet should do, is that not the behavior that you are seeing?