Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Need extra eyes - what is different?

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Maitland
    ... *Variables Used (x):* Text (Armor name) *Variables Used (x):* ARMORTYPE=Text (Armor type) *What it does:* * This is a pipe-delimited (|) list of armor, by
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 24, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Change your tags to:

      |AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=%LIST|
      ||
      |& |
      ||
      |||CHOOSE:ARMORPROF|1|TYPE=ExoticArmor|
      |
      REFERENCE:
      | AUTO:ARMORPROF|x|x

      *Variables Used (x):* Text (Armor name)

      *Variables Used (x):* ARMORTYPE=Text (Armor type)

      *What it does:*

      * This is a pipe-delimited (|) list of armor, by name or by armor
      type, that are granted as free armor proficiencies.
      * When including the |ARMORTYPE=| sub-tag you may use a
      period-delimted (.) list of armor types. This will grant the
      character proficiency with armor that meet all of the listed armor
      types.
      * Only one PRExxx tag is allowed, but it can be a PREMULT statement.
      * PRExxx tags must be enclosed within brackets. (i.e. [PRExxx]).

      *Examples:*

      |AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Light|

      All Light armors are given as free armor proficiencies.

      |AUTO:ARMORPROF|Leather|

      Leather armor is given as a free armor proficiency.

      |AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Light|ARMORTYPE=Medium|

      Light and Medium Armor is given as a free armor proficiency.

      |AUTO:ARMORPROF|Dwarven Plate[PRERACE:1,Dwarf]|

      Dwarven Plate is given as a free armor proficiency if the character is a
      Dwarf.

      *Deprecated Syntax:*

      |AUTO:ARMORPROF:TYPE.x|TYPE=x| (Deprecated 5.13.7)

      "TYPE" replaced by "ARMORTYPE".


      ~ Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
      ~ Admin Silverback, PCGen Board of Directors
      ~ Data Gibbon, Tracker Gibbon, Docs Lemur
      "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"



      Shelley wrote:
      > I'm creating an Exotic Armor Proficiency feat, patterned after the
      > Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. I'm putting the code for both in here
      > because I can't see why one works and the other doesn't. I'm sure I'm
      > missing it. Would appreciate someone else's look-see.
      >
      > Exotic Armor Proficiency TYPE:General.Fighter PREFEAT:1,Armor
      > Proficiency (Light),Armor Proficiency (Medium),Armor Proficiency (Heavy)
      > AUTO:ARMORPROF|%LIST
      > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|TYPE.ExoticArmor MULT:YES
      >
      > Exotic Weapon Proficiency TYPE:General.Fighter
      > PREATT:1 MULT:YES
      > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|WEAPON|UNIQUE|TYPE.Exotic
      > AUTO:WEAPONPROF|%LIST
      >
      > Shelley
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Barak
      ... This. Armorprof files do not have a TYPE tag in them (and that s where the CHOOSE tag is looking, not in the equipment file). You might try putting one in
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 24, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|TYPE.ExoticArmor

        This.

        Armorprof files do not have a TYPE tag in them (and that's where the CHOOSE
        tag is looking, not in the equipment file).

        You might try putting one in there and seeing if it works, but I have my
        doubts...

        Barak
      • Shelley
        ... the CHOOSE ... have my ... Hmmm. What Andrew suggested worked, sort of. It granted Exotic Armor Proficiency (Exotic Armor Proficiency). Not really what I
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 24, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Barak" <barak@...> wrote:
          >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          > > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|TYPE.ExoticArmor
          >
          > This.
          >
          > Armorprof files do not have a TYPE tag in them (and that's where
          the CHOOSE
          > tag is looking, not in the equipment file).
          >
          > You might try putting one in there and seeing if it works, but I
          have my
          > doubts...
          >
          > Barak
          >

          Hmmm. What Andrew suggested worked, sort of. It granted Exotic Armor
          Proficiency (Exotic Armor Proficiency). Not really what I was going
          for.

          I swear I had this working in an earlier version of PCGen. The only
          way around it that I see is to list all the armors separately - ick.
          Any other suggestions? And maybe a future version should have the
          TYPE for Armorprof files?

          Shelley
        • Andrew Maitland
          ... If you re using the latest VERSION, you can put TYPEs in for Armor Proficiency. (It s a lst file) However, unless we modify it to work like Weapon
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 24, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Shelley wrote:
            > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Barak" <barak@...> wrote:
            >
            >>> -----Original Message-----
            >>> CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|TYPE.ExoticArmor
            >>>
            >> This.
            >>
            >> Armorprof files do not have a TYPE tag in them (and that's where
            >>
            > the CHOOSE
            >
            >> tag is looking, not in the equipment file).
            >>
            >> You might try putting one in there and seeing if it works, but I
            >>
            > have my
            >
            >> doubts...
            >>
            >> Barak
            >>
            >>
            >
            > Hmmm. What Andrew suggested worked, sort of. It granted Exotic Armor
            > Proficiency (Exotic Armor Proficiency). Not really what I was going
            > for.
            >
            > I swear I had this working in an earlier version of PCGen. The only
            > way around it that I see is to list all the armors separately - ick.
            > Any other suggestions? And maybe a future version should have the
            > TYPE for Armorprof files?
            >

            If you're using the latest VERSION, you can put TYPEs in for Armor
            Proficiency. (It's a lst file)

            However, unless we modify it to work like Weapon Proficiencies, then
            Barak, you'll be correct. I think Tom needs to comment where we can put
            TYPE on Armor Proficiency like we can in Weapon Proficiencies.
            > Shelley
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Barak
            ... Yeah, for the AUTO:ARMOPROF tag... it actually looks at the equipment file. ... Yeah, that s what I figured. When you re choosing proficiencies, the
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 24, 2008
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > -----Original Message-----
              > If you're using the latest VERSION, you can put TYPEs in for Armor
              > Proficiency. (It's a lst file)

              Yeah, for the AUTO:ARMOPROF tag... it actually looks at the equipment file.

              > However, unless we modify it to work like Weapon Proficiencies, then
              > Barak, you'll be correct. I think Tom needs to comment where we can put
              > TYPE on Armor Proficiency like we can in Weapon Proficiencies.

              Yeah, that's what I figured. When you're choosing proficiencies, the
              chooser would be looking at proficiency types, not equipment types.

              I think being able to have TYPE tags in the armorprof (and shieldprof) files
              would be a good idea. Who knows, maybe it's already there, since as I
              recall we said we wanted it to "work like the weaponprof file" back when we
              were originally discussing it.

              Tom? Any input?

              Barak
            • Tom Parker
              The short answer here is: The docs are lying to you... the feature you are attempting to use has not been fully implemented. ... For weapons, I don t doubt it.
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 24, 2008
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                The short answer here is: The docs are lying to you... the feature you
                are attempting to use has not been fully implemented.

                > I swear I had this working in an earlier version of PCGen. The only
                > way around it that I see is to list all the armors separately - ick.
                > Any other suggestions? And maybe a future version should have the
                > TYPE for Armorprof files?

                For weapons, I don't doubt it. For Armor or Shield, that is unlikely,
                as CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has
                been commented out since it was imported in April 2006).

                If/when it is implemented, it should, in fact, take the ARMORTYPE
                syntax, e.g.: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE=ExoticArmor

                > I think Tom needs to comment where we can put
                > TYPE on Armor Proficiency like we can in Weapon Proficiencies.

                You can't, and expect it to work, because it wasn't possible without
                breaking backwards compatibility with 5.12 datasets. That isn't
                allowed by data rules, so you can't use TYPE in armor or shield profs
                and expect it to be recognized anywhere by PCGen.

                You also can't because it doesn't many any sense at all. The TYPEs
                people want to associated are not part of the proficiency, they are
                part of the equipment. The code mangling required to maintain parity
                of duplicate information is ridiculously complicated and completely
                unnecessary. I would note the Weapon proficiency system as
                implemented today is factually incorrect, but that's a battle I intend
                to fight at a later time, say 6.1. In short, I have seen no case
                where the Proficiency requires a TYPE.

                > Yeah, that's what I figured. When you're choosing proficiencies, the
                > chooser would be looking at proficiency types, not equipment types.

                Per above, the chooser has never looked at anything for armor or shield.

                > I think being able to have TYPE tags in the armorprof (and
                shieldprof) files
                > would be a good idea. Who knows, maybe it's already there, since as I
                > recall we said we wanted it to "work like the weaponprof file" back
                when we
                > were originally discussing it.
                >
                > Tom? Any input?

                Can you provide a particular example where you think it would be
                valuable? If so, we can consider adding support in 6.2. We cannot do
                it before then. TYPE actually meant ARMORTYPE in 5.12 (forced
                compatibility) and the "bad" use was deprecated in 5.14, so that we
                can force people to transition away from it, it must fail (TYPE cannot
                be used at all) in 6.0.

                TP.
              • Shelley
                ... My specific case is that I have various sets of armor that are all labeled by the publisher as Exotic and require a separate armor proficiency. While I
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 25, 2008
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Can you provide a particular example where you think it would be
                  > valuable? If so, we can consider adding support in 6.2. We cannot do
                  > it before then. TYPE actually meant ARMORTYPE in 5.12 (forced
                  > compatibility) and the "bad" use was deprecated in 5.14, so that we
                  > can force people to transition away from it, it must fail (TYPE cannot
                  > be used at all) in 6.0.
                  >
                  > TP.
                  >

                  My specific case is that I have various sets of armor that are all
                  labeled by the publisher as 'Exotic' and require a separate armor
                  proficiency. While I can hard code everything now, if other books are
                  added, this would be very messy maintenance without using some sort of
                  TYPE in granting the armor proficiency.

                  Shelley
                • Tom Parker
                  ... From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the Proficiency. The
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 25, 2008
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Shelley" <takenote61@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > > Can you provide a particular example where you think it would be
                    > > valuable? If so, we can consider adding support in 6.2. We cannot do
                    > > it before then. TYPE actually meant ARMORTYPE in 5.12 (forced
                    > > compatibility) and the "bad" use was deprecated in 5.14, so that we
                    > > can force people to transition away from it, it must fail (TYPE cannot
                    > > be used at all) in 6.0.
                    > >
                    > > TP.
                    > >
                    >
                    > My specific case is that I have various sets of armor that are all
                    > labeled by the publisher as 'Exotic' and require a separate armor
                    > proficiency. While I can hard code everything now, if other books are
                    > added, this would be very messy maintenance without using some sort of
                    > TYPE in granting the armor proficiency.
                    >
                    > Shelley

                    From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
                    will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the
                    Proficiency.

                    The case I'm looking for is "Why does the Proficiency require a
                    separate TYPE from the TYPE already defined in the Equipment?" I have
                    yet to find a situation where it is not duplicating information from
                    the Equipment.

                    TP.
                  • Shelley
                    ... Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn t look like one, it won t work for me. Shelley
                    Message 9 of 16 , Mar 25, 2008
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >
                      > From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
                      > will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the
                      > Proficiency.
                      >

                      Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn't look like one, it won't work
                      for me.

                      Shelley
                    • Martijn Verburg
                      Trackered - K
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 26, 2008
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Trackered - K

                        > The short answer here is: The docs are lying to you... the feature you
                        > are attempting to use has not been fully implemented.
                      • Tom Parker
                        ... Well, today, you can t get there from here. For Armor or Shield, CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has been commented out since
                        Message 11 of 16 , Mar 26, 2008
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Shelley" <takenote61@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > >
                          > > From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
                          > > will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the
                          > > Proficiency.
                          > >
                          >
                          > Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn't look like one, it won't work
                          > for me.
                          >
                          > Shelley
                          >

                          Well, today, you can't get there from here. For Armor or Shield,
                          CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has been
                          commented out since it was imported in April 2006).

                          If/when it is implemented, it should, in fact, take the ARMORTYPE
                          syntax, e.g.: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE=ExoticArmor

                          Thus, the same as the above AUTO example, it should not require a TYPE
                          in the Proficiency file, but should leverage what is already in the
                          Equipment file.

                          TP.
                        • Terry FitzSimons
                          Two questions; first In reference to the tracker [ 1926295 ] ARMORPROF incorrect I am thinking of changing the docs for: Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                          Message 12 of 16 , Mar 27, 2008
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Two questions; first

                            In reference to the tracker "[ 1926295 ] ARMORPROF incorrect" I am thinking
                            of changing the docs for:

                            Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                            Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not already
                            possessed by PC)

                            to:

                            Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                            Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not already
                            possessed by PC)
                            CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE="Currently inactive, implemented
                            after 6.0" in the usual red.

                            Is this acceptable?

                            Second, how to change the html page to left justify rather than center
                            justify or what ever its doing?

                            Terry

                            On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:13:02 -0000, "Tom Parker" <thpr@...> wrote:

                            >--- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Shelley" <takenote61@...>
                            >wrote:
                            >>
                            >> >
                            >> > From what I can read of your example, AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
                            >> > will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE to the
                            >> > Proficiency.
                            >> >
                            >>
                            >> Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn't look like one, it won't work
                            >> for me.
                            >>
                            >> Shelley
                            >>
                            >
                            >Well, today, you can't get there from here. For Armor or Shield,
                            >CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has been
                            >commented out since it was imported in April 2006).
                            >
                            >If/when it is implemented, it should, in fact, take the ARMORTYPE
                            >syntax, e.g.: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE=ExoticArmor
                            >
                            >Thus, the same as the above AUTO example, it should not require a TYPE
                            >in the Proficiency file, but should leverage what is already in the
                            >Equipment file.
                            >
                            >TP.
                            --

                            Terry FitzSimons
                            FITZSIMONS@...(Small Letters Only)

                            Data Lemur, Docs Gibbon
                          • Martijn Verburg
                            ... Hmm, I don t think we ve ever documented tags in advance of them being coded, my minor preference would be to delete the entry, but I ll leave the call up
                            Message 13 of 16 , Apr 7 8:51 AM
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Two questions; first
                              >
                              > In reference to the tracker "[ 1926295 ] ARMORPROF incorrect" I am
                              > thinking of changing the docs for:
                              >
                              > Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                              > Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not
                              > already possessed by PC)
                              >
                              > to:
                              >
                              > Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                              > Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not
                              > already possessed by PC)
                              > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE="Currently inactive,
                              > implemented after 6.0" in the usual red.
                              >
                              > Is this acceptable?

                              Hmm, I don't think we've ever documented tags in advance of them being
                              coded, my minor preference would be to delete the entry, but I'll
                              leave the call up to Eric as the Doc lead

                              > Second, how to change the html page to left justify rather than
                              > center justify or what ever its doing?

                              That depends on what you are trying to center, until we go full style
                              sheet you can add an align="center".

                              K
                            • Eric C. Smith
                              Hi Folks! ... I think we don t need to include this non-capability in our docs. In general, we do not want to document the capabilities that we do not have,
                              Message 14 of 16 , Apr 7 10:15 AM
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Folks!

                                Kar wrote:
                                >
                                > > Two questions; first
                                > >
                                > > In reference to the tracker "[ 1926295 ] ARMORPROF incorrect" I am
                                > > thinking of changing the docs for:
                                > >
                                > > Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                                > > Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not
                                > > already possessed by PC)
                                > >
                                > > to:
                                > >
                                > > Tag Name: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|x|y|z|z
                                > > Variables Used (y): UNIQUE (Choose from all proficiencies not
                                > > already possessed by PC)
                                > > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE="Currently inactive,
                                > > implemented after 6.0" in the usual red.
                                > >
                                > > Is this acceptable?
                                >
                                > Hmm, I don't think we've ever documented tags in advance of them being
                                > coded, my minor preference would be to delete the entry, but I'll
                                > leave the call up to Eric as the Doc lead

                                I think we don't need to include this non-capability in our docs.

                                In general, we do not want to document the capabilities that we
                                do not have, especially as we will never be able to include everything
                                we can't do . . . .

                                There are exceptions, but we need to vet those very carefully.
                                (Tom and I had such a discussion several weeks ago and for
                                that instance, he made a good case.)

                                > > Second, how to change the html page to left justify rather than
                                > > center justify or what ever its doing?
                                >
                                > That depends on what you are trying to center, until we go full style
                                > sheet you can add an align="center".

                                I believe what Terry is refering to is the tendancy for long LST
                                examples to be justified on both sides. Sometime last year I
                                added a style in pcgen.css to fix this. You can use
                                "<p class="taginentx"><code>Long LST Line</code></p>",
                                wrapped inside of a <blockquote class="indentx"></blockquote>
                                to fix the problem. Its a little trick, but it works and it looks good
                                when you get it right . . . :-)

                                On a related note, looking at Tom's earlier post, I am inclined to
                                remove the documentation for the non-functional capability.

                                Eric Smith
                                Doc 2nd
                              • musicguerilla
                                SIGHS looks like this just answered my very question in the newer post. Wish i d seen this first :( ... AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic ... to the ... work ...
                                Message 15 of 16 , Apr 8 10:58 PM
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  SIGHS looks like this just answered my very question in the newer
                                  post. Wish i'd seen this first :(

                                  --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Parker" <thpr@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Shelley" <takenote61@>
                                  > wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > From what I can read of your example,
                                  AUTO:ARMORPROF|ARMORTYPE=Exotic
                                  > > > will do that today. There is no need to actually add a TYPE
                                  to the
                                  > > > Proficiency.
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Uh, unless this is a chooser that doesn't look like one, it won't
                                  work
                                  > > for me.
                                  > >
                                  > > Shelley
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Well, today, you can't get there from here. For Armor or Shield,
                                  > CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR code has never functioned (the code has
                                  been
                                  > commented out since it was imported in April 2006).
                                  >
                                  > If/when it is implemented, it should, in fact, take the ARMORTYPE
                                  > syntax, e.g.: CHOOSE:PROFICIENCY|ARMOR|UNIQUE|ARMORTYPE=ExoticArmor
                                  >
                                  > Thus, the same as the above AUTO example, it should not require a
                                  TYPE
                                  > in the Proficiency file, but should leverage what is already in the
                                  > Equipment file.
                                  >
                                  > TP.
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.