Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
×
Create a free account

[Hackmaster 5E] Character sheets non-functional (defense rolls + resetting stats)

1591900890

Edited 1591901511
After the recent character sheet update, the defense rolls have been non-functional. The value and data-formula for the sheet defense modifier is missing closing brackets for @{weapon_style_defense_switch. Furthermore, the defense die has to be changed manually and values need to exist for shield damage and current fatigue rather than it defaulting to 0, for the total defense mod to be summed correctly. Adding the curly braces to the variables with the HTML editor and switching the die type once seems to fix it. The error is in line 814 of the HackMaster_5E.html file On top of that, many of the character sheets in my campaign have had their stats reset (don't know why some others haven't).
1592064961
Andreas J.
Forum Champion
Sheet Author
Translator
Seems the author of the sheet update also noticed this and submitted a fix right away, but Roll20 usually updates Community sheets like this once a week, so the fix should go live on next Tuesday or Wednesday. <a href="https://github.com/Roll20/roll20-character-sheets/pull/6725" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/Roll20/roll20-character-sheets/pull/6725</a> A note for the future, Any character sheet that doesn't have "by Roll20" in their name are community-created sheets, and bugs/problems with those are generally up to the community/creators. If you have problems with other community sheets in the future, recommend you post in the Character Sheets &amp; Compendium forum for better visibility and chance the right people might notice.
Ah, I see. I thought about posting there but I assumed this section was the correct one, my mistake. Thank you for the reply!