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

ADD:ABILITY syntax

Expand Messages
  • Michael W. Fender
    Here s a copy of the tags in a feat giving me trouble: ADD:ABILITY|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat Bonus 1|PRELEVEL:MIN=7 ADD:ABILITY|Special
    Message 1 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's a copy of the tags in a feat giving me trouble:
      ADD:ABILITY|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat Bonus 1|PRELEVEL:MIN=7
      ADD:ABILITY|Special Ability|VIRTUAL|Banana Stat Bonus 2|PRELEVEL:MIN=11
      ADD:ABILITY|1|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat Bonus 3|PRELEVEL:MIN=15
      ADD:ABILITY|1|Special Ability|VIRTUAL|Banana Stat Bonus 4|PRELEVEL:MIN=19

      Here's the error messages:
      SEVERE Attempt to fetch AbilityCategory: NORMAL... but it does not exist
      LSTERROR ADD:ABILITY: Invalid ability category: NORMAL
      LSTERROR Failed in parsing subtoken: ABILITY of Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana
      Stat Bonus 1|PRELEVEL:MIN=7
      LSTERROR Illegal ADD subtoken 'ABILITY' 'Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat
      Bonus 1|PRELEVEL:MIN=7' for Banana Blessing
      LSTERROR Illegal Token 'ADD' 'ABILITY|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat Bonus
      1|PRELEVEL:MIN=7' for pcgen.core.Ability Banana Blessing
      SEVERE Attempt to fetch AbilityCategory: VIRTUAL... but it does not exist
      LSTERROR ADD:ABILITY: Invalid ability category: VIRTUAL
      LSTERROR Failed in parsing subtoken: ABILITY of Special Ability|VIRTUAL|Banana
      Stat Bonus 2|PRELEVEL:MIN=11
      LSTERROR Illegal ADD subtoken 'ABILITY' 'Special Ability|VIRTUAL|Banana Stat
      Bonus 2|PRELEVEL:MIN=11' for Banana Blessing
      LSTERROR Illegal Token 'ADD' 'ABILITY|Special Ability|VIRTUAL|Banana Stat
      Bonus 2|PRELEVEL:MIN=11' for pcgen.core.Ability Banana Blessing
      LSTERROR Syntax of ADD:ABILITY requires three | when a count is not present:
      1|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat Bonus 3|PRELEVEL:MIN=15
      LSTERROR Failed in parsing subtoken: ABILITY of 1|Special Ability|NORMAL|
      Banana Stat Bonus 3|PRELEVEL:MIN=15
      LSTERROR Illegal ADD subtoken 'ABILITY' '1|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat
      Bonus 3|PRELEVEL:MIN=15' for Banana Blessing
      LSTERROR Illegal Token 'ADD' 'ABILITY|1|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat
      Bonus 3|PRELEVEL:MIN=15' for pcgen.core.Ability Banana Blessing
      LSTERROR Syntax of ADD:ABILITY requires three | when a count is not present:
      1|Special Ability|VIRTUAL|Banana Stat Bonus 4|PRELEVEL:MIN=19
      LSTERROR Failed in parsing subtoken: ABILITY of 1|Special Ability|VIRTUAL|
      Banana Stat Bonus 4|PRELEVEL:MIN=19
      LSTERROR Illegal ADD subtoken 'ABILITY' '1|Special Ability|VIRTUAL|Banana Stat
      Bonus 4|PRELEVEL:MIN=19' for Banana Blessing
      LSTERROR Illegal Token 'ADD' 'ABILITY|1|Special Ability|VIRTUAL|Banana Stat
      Bonus 4|PRELEVEL:MIN=19' for pcgen.core.Ability Banana Blessing

      I've included each variation to show ... each variation. Both a number and
      NORMAL/VIRTUAL natures were used. Am I doing something wrong or is there a
      problem with ADD: and PRExxx?
      --
      Fluxxdog

      The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
      think.
    • Eddy Anthony
      ... ADD doesn t take PRE, You should put the PRE in the ability itself. -- ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT) ~ PCGen Board of Directors ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
      Message 2 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael W. Fender scribed:

        > Here's a copy of the tags in a feat giving me trouble:
        > ADD:ABILITY|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat Bonus 1|PRELEVEL:MIN=7

        ADD doesn't take PRE,

        You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
        --
        ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
        ~ PCGen Board of Directors
        ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
      • Eddy Anthony
        ... All ADD tags. -- ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT) ~ PCGen Board of Directors ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
        Message 3 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael W. Fender scribed:

          >> ADD doesn't take PRE,
          >>
          >> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
          >
          > Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?

          All ADD tags.
          --
          ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
          ~ PCGen Board of Directors
          ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
        • Michael W. Fender
          Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags? -- Fluxxdog The worst crime you can
          Message 4 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
            Archive found in file
            > Michael W. Fender scribed:
            > > Here's a copy of the tags in a feat giving me trouble:
            > > ADD:ABILITY|Special Ability|NORMAL|Banana Stat Bonus 1|PRELEVEL:MIN=7
            >
            > ADD doesn't take PRE,
            >
            > You should put the PRE in the ability itself.

            Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?

            --
            Fluxxdog

            The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
            think.
          • Eddy Anthony
            ... I should add that I don t think we want them to either. -- ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT) ~ PCGen Board of Directors ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
            Message 5 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Eddy Anthony scribed:

              > Michael W. Fender scribed:
              >
              >>> ADD doesn't take PRE,
              >>>
              >>> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
              >>
              >> Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
              >
              > All ADD tags.

              I should add that I don't think we want them to either.
              --
              ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
              ~ PCGen Board of Directors
              ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
            • Michael W. Fender
              Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:
              Message 6 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                Archive found in file
                > Michael W. Fender scribed:
                > >> ADD doesn't take PRE,
                > >>
                > >> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
                > >
                > > Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
                >
                > All ADD tags.

                Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:
                https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/index.php?func=detail&aid=2491524&group_id=25576&atid=748234

                --
                Fluxxdog

                The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                think.
              • Eric C Smith
                Hi Folks! ... In what way is it a doc bug? ADD works as designed and the Docs don t claim that it takes PRExxx does it? Eric Smith Doc 2nd
                Message 7 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Folks!

                  On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Michael W. Fender wrote:
                  > Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                  > Archive found in file
                  >> Michael W. Fender scribed:
                  >>>> ADD doesn't take PRE,
                  >>>>
                  >>>> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
                  >>>
                  >>> Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
                  >>
                  >> All ADD tags.
                  >
                  > Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:
                  > https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/index.php?
                  > func=detail&aid=2491524&group_id=25576&atid=748234

                  In what way is it a doc bug? ADD works as designed and the Docs
                  don't claim that it takes PRExxx does it?

                  Eric Smith
                  Doc 2nd
                • Eddy Anthony
                  ... I wouldn t consider it a bug, our standard has been that those tags which take PRE explicitly state so. If an entry for a tag does not say it takes PRE
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Michael W. Fender scribed:

                    >>>> ADD doesn't take PRE,
                    >>>>
                    >>>> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
                    >>>
                    >>> Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
                    >>
                    >> All ADD tags.
                    >
                    > Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:

                    I wouldn't consider it a bug, our standard has been that those tags which
                    take PRE explicitly state so. If an entry for a tag does not say it takes
                    PRE then it's implied that it does not.

                    I don't think it hurts anything to state that a tag does not but there are a
                    lot of tags that don't.

                    I'll leave it to Eric to make that call.
                    --
                    ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
                    ~ PCGen Board of Directors
                    ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
                  • Michael W. Fender
                    Accessing archive from Eric C Smith ... Archive found in file ... Gee, and I already committed... My whole line of thinking was ADD:ABILITY functions like
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                      Archive found in file
                      > Hi Folks!
                      >
                      > On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Michael W. Fender wrote:
                      > > Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                      > > Archive found in file
                      > >
                      > >> Michael W. Fender scribed:
                      > >>>> ADD doesn't take PRE,
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
                      > >>>
                      > >>> Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
                      > >>
                      > >> All ADD tags.
                      > >
                      > > Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:
                      > > https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/index.php?
                      > > func=detail&aid=2491524&group_id=25576&atid=748234
                      >
                      > In what way is it a doc bug? ADD works as designed and the Docs
                      > don't claim that it takes PRExxx does it?

                      Gee, and I already committed...

                      My whole line of thinking was "ADD:ABILITY functions like ABILITY in most
                      ways, so it should take PRExxx." It only became an issue because what I
                      wanted to was add was an ability that had a chooser.

                      With the line that I added, people can make sure that, if they need a PRExxx
                      tag for an ADDed ability, then it can't be in the ADD: syntax. Like the bug I
                      greated, it's a 'clarification'.

                      --
                      Fluxxdog

                      The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                      think.
                    • Eddy Anthony
                      ... Why not add an Ability pool? We re trying to move away from using ADD. -- ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT) ~ PCGen Board of Directors ~ Content Silverback, Chair
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Michael W. Fender scribed:

                        > My whole line of thinking was "ADD:ABILITY functions like ABILITY in most
                        > ways, so it should take PRExxx." It only became an issue because what I
                        > wanted to was add was an ability that had a chooser.

                        Why not add an Ability pool? We're trying to move away from using ADD.
                        --
                        ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
                        ~ PCGen Board of Directors
                        ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
                      • Eric C Smith
                        Hi Michael! ... As Eddy says, this isn t a bug. The standard for the docs is that we document what PCGen and the tags DO. We do not, in general, document what
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Michael!

                          Michael wrote:

                          > Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                          > Archive found in file
                          >> Hi Folks!
                          >>
                          >> On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Michael W. Fender wrote:
                          >>> Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                          >>> Archive found in file
                          >>>
                          >>>> Michael W. Fender scribed:
                          >>>>>> ADD doesn't take PRE,
                          >>>>>>
                          >>>>>> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
                          >>>>>
                          >>>>> Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
                          >>>>
                          >>>> All ADD tags.
                          >>>
                          >>> Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:
                          >>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/index.php?
                          >>> func=detail&aid=2491524&group_id=25576&atid=748234
                          >>
                          >> In what way is it a doc bug? ADD works as designed and the Docs
                          >> don't claim that it takes PRExxx does it?
                          >
                          > Gee, and I already committed...
                          >
                          > My whole line of thinking was "ADD:ABILITY functions like ABILITY
                          > in most
                          > ways, so it should take PRExxx." It only became an issue because
                          > what I
                          > wanted to was add was an ability that had a chooser.
                          >
                          > With the line that I added, people can make sure that, if they need
                          > a PRExxx
                          > tag for an ADDed ability, then it can't be in the ADD: syntax.
                          > Like the bug I
                          > greated, it's a 'clarification'.

                          As Eddy says, this isn't a bug.

                          The standard for the docs is that we document what PCGen and the tags
                          DO. We do not, in general, document what PCGen and the tags don't do.
                          In the case of the PRExxx tags, as Eddy says, there are a lot of tags
                          that don't take PRExxx tags. My reason for pushing this particular
                          doc standard is simply that there are far too many things that PCGen
                          and its tags and tokens DON'T do to document, so lets not try.


                          Eric C. Smith
                          Doc 2nd
                        • Michael W. Fender
                          Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... Eh, ADD:ABILITY works for my purposes for now. I mean, sure, I can do that later on down
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                            Archive found in file
                            > Michael W. Fender scribed:
                            > > My whole line of thinking was "ADD:ABILITY functions like ABILITY in most
                            > > ways, so it should take PRExxx." It only became an issue because what I
                            > > wanted to was add was an ability that had a chooser.
                            >
                            > Why not add an Ability pool? We're trying to move away from using ADD.

                            Eh, ADD:ABILITY works for my purposes for now. I mean, sure, I can do that
                            later on down the road. But the way this ability works is it is chosen, then
                            left alone as it calculates its own bonus.

                            Unless you're trying to tell me ADD is going to be deprecated...

                            --
                            Fluxxdog

                            The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                            think.
                          • Eddy Anthony
                            ... No plans for that. I prefer using an ability pool because it allows the user to change it later, it doesn t force the user to make a decision at level
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Michael W. Fender scribed:

                              >> Why not add an Ability pool? We're trying to move away from using ADD.
                              >
                              > Eh, ADD:ABILITY works for my purposes for now. I mean, sure, I can do that
                              > later on down the road. But the way this ability works is it is chosen, then
                              > left alone as it calculates its own bonus.
                              >
                              > Unless you're trying to tell me ADD is going to be deprecated...

                              No plans for that.

                              I prefer using an ability pool because it allows the user to change it
                              later, it doesn't force the user to make a decision at level time, it allows
                              the user to see all the choices and the prereqs which means the user can go
                              and choose other things so he can meet the PRE. With ADD:FEAT and ABILITY
                              you don't see the choices you can't take.

                              If it is a feature which needs to be chosen at level time I like to use
                              TEMPLATE:CHOOSE because if there is only one valid choice it gets added
                              without popping a chooser. The other advantage to templates is that when the
                              parent object is removed all the templates go with it, that's not always so
                              with ADD (although it's getting better).
                              --
                              ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
                              ~ PCGen Board of Directors
                              ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
                            • Michael W. Fender
                              Accessing archive from Eric C Smith ... Archive found in file ... Really? I could have sworn I d seen that somewhere before. I can t remember where in the
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                                Archive found in file
                                > Hi Michael!
                                >
                                > Michael wrote:
                                > > Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                                > > Archive found in file
                                > >
                                > >> Hi Folks!
                                > >>
                                > >> On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Michael W. Fender wrote:
                                > >>> Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                                > >>> Archive found in file
                                > >>>
                                > >>>> Michael W. Fender scribed:
                                > >>>>>> ADD doesn't take PRE,
                                > >>>>>>
                                > >>>>>> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
                                > >>>>>
                                > >>>>> Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
                                > >>>>
                                > >>>> All ADD tags.
                                > >>>
                                > >>> Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:
                                > >>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/index.php?
                                > >>> func=detail&aid=2491524&group_id=25576&atid=748234
                                > >>
                                > >> In what way is it a doc bug? ADD works as designed and the Docs
                                > >> don't claim that it takes PRExxx does it?
                                > >
                                > > Gee, and I already committed...
                                > >
                                > > My whole line of thinking was "ADD:ABILITY functions like ABILITY
                                > > in most
                                > > ways, so it should take PRExxx." It only became an issue because
                                > > what I
                                > > wanted to was add was an ability that had a chooser.
                                > >
                                > > With the line that I added, people can make sure that, if they need
                                > > a PRExxx
                                > > tag for an ADDed ability, then it can't be in the ADD: syntax.
                                > > Like the bug I
                                > > greated, it's a 'clarification'.
                                >
                                > As Eddy says, this isn't a bug.
                                >
                                > The standard for the docs is that we document what PCGen and the tags
                                > DO. We do not, in general, document what PCGen and the tags don't do.
                                > In the case of the PRExxx tags, as Eddy says, there are a lot of tags
                                > that don't take PRExxx tags. My reason for pushing this particular
                                > doc standard is simply that there are far too many things that PCGen
                                > and its tags and tokens DON'T do to document, so lets not try.

                                Really? I could have sworn I'd seen that somewhere before. I can't remember
                                where in the docs, but I had seen where it stated what you couldn't do. Can't
                                remember for the life of me where though...

                                Wasn't trying to get everyone's dander up. Just thought it was an over sight.
                                Live and learn :p

                                --
                                Fluxxdog

                                The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                                think.
                              • Eddy Anthony
                                ... Not a problem, just allow a little time for comment with new trackers. -- ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT) ~ PCGen Board of Directors ~ Content Silverback, Chair
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Michael W. Fender scribed:

                                  > Wasn't trying to get everyone's dander up. Just thought it was an over sight.
                                  > Live and learn :p

                                  Not a problem, just allow a little time for comment with new trackers.
                                  --
                                  ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
                                  ~ PCGen Board of Directors
                                  ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
                                • Eric C Smith
                                  Hi Michael! ... No dander at all! :-) And I m certain that you have seen examples in the docs where we say It won t do . . . . There are always exceptions to
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Michael!

                                    Michael wrote:
                                    > Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                                    > Archive found in file
                                    >> Hi Michael!
                                    >>
                                    >> Michael wrote:
                                    >>> Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                                    >>> Archive found in file
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> Hi Folks!
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Michael W. Fender wrote:
                                    >>>>> Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                                    >>>>> Archive found in file
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>>> Michael W. Fender scribed:
                                    >>>>>>>> ADD doesn't take PRE,
                                    >>>>>>>>
                                    >>>>>>>> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
                                    >>>>>>>
                                    >>>>>>> Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
                                    >>>>>>
                                    >>>>>> All ADD tags.
                                    >>>>>
                                    >>>>> Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:
                                    >>>>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/index.php?
                                    >>>>> func=detail&aid=2491524&group_id=25576&atid=748234
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> In what way is it a doc bug? ADD works as designed and the Docs
                                    >>>> don't claim that it takes PRExxx does it?
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Gee, and I already committed...
                                    >>>
                                    >>> My whole line of thinking was "ADD:ABILITY functions like ABILITY
                                    >>> in most
                                    >>> ways, so it should take PRExxx." It only became an issue because
                                    >>> what I
                                    >>> wanted to was add was an ability that had a chooser.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> With the line that I added, people can make sure that, if they need
                                    >>> a PRExxx
                                    >>> tag for an ADDed ability, then it can't be in the ADD: syntax.
                                    >>> Like the bug I
                                    >>> greated, it's a 'clarification'.
                                    >>
                                    >> As Eddy says, this isn't a bug.
                                    >>
                                    >> The standard for the docs is that we document what PCGen and the tags
                                    >> DO. We do not, in general, document what PCGen and the tags don't do.
                                    >> In the case of the PRExxx tags, as Eddy says, there are a lot of tags
                                    >> that don't take PRExxx tags. My reason for pushing this particular
                                    >> doc standard is simply that there are far too many things that PCGen
                                    >> and its tags and tokens DON'T do to document, so lets not try.
                                    >
                                    > Really? I could have sworn I'd seen that somewhere before. I
                                    > can't remember
                                    > where in the docs, but I had seen where it stated what you couldn't
                                    > do. Can't
                                    > remember for the life of me where though...
                                    >
                                    > Wasn't trying to get everyone's dander up. Just thought it was an
                                    > over sight.
                                    > Live and learn :p

                                    No dander at all! :-)

                                    And I'm certain that you have seen examples in the docs where we say
                                    "It won't do . . .". There are always exceptions to any rule, but the
                                    goal is to minimize them, and I am slowly going through the docs and
                                    addressing those entries that violate this particular standard.

                                    I will say though, that the clarification would be useful, but I
                                    would suggest a clear statement be added to the top of the PRExxx
                                    page that says that tags that take the PRExxx tags are clearly marked
                                    as such. I believe that is the best way to handle this issue.

                                    Eric Smith
                                    Doc 2nd
                                  • Michael W. Fender
                                    Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... On one hand, that a very good point. On the other, that s a horrible thing to allow! This
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                                      Archive found in file
                                      > Michael W. Fender scribed:
                                      > >> Why not add an Ability pool? We're trying to move away from using ADD.
                                      > >
                                      > > Eh, ADD:ABILITY works for my purposes for now. I mean, sure, I can do
                                      > > that later on down the road. But the way this ability works is it is
                                      > > chosen, then left alone as it calculates its own bonus.
                                      > >
                                      > > Unless you're trying to tell me ADD is going to be deprecated...
                                      >
                                      > No plans for that.
                                      >
                                      > I prefer using an ability pool because it allows the user to change it
                                      > later, it doesn't force the user to make a decision at level time, it
                                      > allows the user to see all the choices and the prereqs which means the user
                                      > can go and choose other things so he can meet the PRE. With ADD:FEAT and
                                      > ABILITY you don't see the choices you can't take.

                                      On one hand, that a very good point. On the other, that's a horrible thing to
                                      allow!

                                      This came up in a game actually. A guy started out as a LV 3 Human Rogue. He
                                      took Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, and Quick Draw for his first 3 feats.

                                      Problem: How could he choose all 3 of those if his BAB at LV 1 was +0 and all
                                      3 feats require a BAB of +1?

                                      Now, I know in PCGen, there's an option to enforce spending of skill points
                                      and feats before leveling up further. But you can see in the above example
                                      how that breaks game mechanics. But that's another story...

                                      > If it is a feature which needs to be chosen at level time I like to use
                                      > TEMPLATE:CHOOSE because if there is only one valid choice it gets added
                                      > without popping a chooser. The other advantage to templates is that when
                                      > the parent object is removed all the templates go with it, that's not
                                      > always so with ADD (although it's getting better).

                                      Oy... That's like saying "TEMPLATES are a workaround for ADD". Forgive my
                                      distaste at such a statement, but... bleh.
                                      --
                                      Fluxxdog

                                      The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                                      think.
                                    • Michael W. Fender
                                      Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... Will do. -- Fluxxdog The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                                        Archive found in file
                                        > Michael W. Fender scribed:
                                        > > Wasn't trying to get everyone's dander up. Just thought it was an over
                                        > > sight. Live and learn :p
                                        >
                                        > Not a problem, just allow a little time for comment with new trackers.

                                        Will do.

                                        --
                                        Fluxxdog

                                        The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                                        think.
                                      • Michael W. Fender
                                        Accessing archive from Eric C Smith ... Archive found in file ... One of the things I learned when I was training to be a... trainer (sounds silly, but...)
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                                          Archive found in file
                                          > Hi Michael!
                                          >
                                          > Michael wrote:
                                          > > Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                                          > > Archive found in file
                                          > >
                                          > >> Hi Michael!
                                          > >>
                                          > >> Michael wrote:
                                          > >>> Accessing archive from "Eric C Smith"...
                                          > >>> Archive found in file
                                          > >>>
                                          > >>>> Hi Folks!
                                          > >>>>
                                          > >>>> On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Michael W. Fender wrote:
                                          > >>>>> Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                                          > >>>>> Archive found in file
                                          > >>>>>
                                          > >>>>>> Michael W. Fender scribed:
                                          > >>>>>>>> ADD doesn't take PRE,
                                          > >>>>>>>>
                                          > >>>>>>>> You should put the PRE in the ability itself.
                                          > >>>>>>>
                                          > >>>>>>> Realy? Is this just ADD:ABILITY or all ADD: tags?
                                          > >>>>>>
                                          > >>>>>> All ADD tags.
                                          > >>>>>
                                          > >>>>> Thanks. Trackered as DOC bug:
                                          > >>>>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/index.php?
                                          > >>>>> func=detail&aid=2491524&group_id=25576&atid=748234
                                          > >>>>
                                          > >>>> In what way is it a doc bug? ADD works as designed and the Docs
                                          > >>>> don't claim that it takes PRExxx does it?
                                          > >>>
                                          > >>> Gee, and I already committed...
                                          > >>>
                                          > >>> My whole line of thinking was "ADD:ABILITY functions like ABILITY
                                          > >>> in most
                                          > >>> ways, so it should take PRExxx." It only became an issue because
                                          > >>> what I
                                          > >>> wanted to was add was an ability that had a chooser.
                                          > >>>
                                          > >>> With the line that I added, people can make sure that, if they need
                                          > >>> a PRExxx
                                          > >>> tag for an ADDed ability, then it can't be in the ADD: syntax.
                                          > >>> Like the bug I
                                          > >>> greated, it's a 'clarification'.
                                          > >>
                                          > >> As Eddy says, this isn't a bug.
                                          > >>
                                          > >> The standard for the docs is that we document what PCGen and the tags
                                          > >> DO. We do not, in general, document what PCGen and the tags don't do.
                                          > >> In the case of the PRExxx tags, as Eddy says, there are a lot of tags
                                          > >> that don't take PRExxx tags. My reason for pushing this particular
                                          > >> doc standard is simply that there are far too many things that PCGen
                                          > >> and its tags and tokens DON'T do to document, so lets not try.
                                          > >
                                          > > Really? I could have sworn I'd seen that somewhere before. I
                                          > > can't remember
                                          > > where in the docs, but I had seen where it stated what you couldn't
                                          > > do. Can't
                                          > > remember for the life of me where though...
                                          > >
                                          > > Wasn't trying to get everyone's dander up. Just thought it was an
                                          > > over sight.
                                          > > Live and learn :p
                                          >
                                          > No dander at all! :-)
                                          >
                                          > And I'm certain that you have seen examples in the docs where we say
                                          > "It won't do . . .". There are always exceptions to any rule, but the
                                          > goal is to minimize them, and I am slowly going through the docs and
                                          > addressing those entries that violate this particular standard.
                                          >
                                          > I will say though, that the clarification would be useful, but I
                                          > would suggest a clear statement be added to the top of the PRExxx
                                          > page that says that tags that take the PRExxx tags are clearly marked
                                          > as such. I believe that is the best way to handle this issue.

                                          One of the things I learned when I was training to be a... trainer (sounds
                                          silly, but...) was "Do not tell or show them the wrong way. (And this is the
                                          only exception to that rule!)" So I can perfectly understand that point of
                                          view.

                                          --
                                          Fluxxdog

                                          The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                                          think.
                                        • Eddy Anthony
                                          ... Depends on the circumstance. Suppose you have an ADD:FEAT at first level and one of the Feats has a PRESKILL in it. The rules say you can choose your
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Michael W. Fender scribed:

                                            > Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                                            > Archive found in file
                                            >> Michael W. Fender scribed:
                                            >>>> Why not add an Ability pool? We're trying to move away from using ADD.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Eh, ADD:ABILITY works for my purposes for now. I mean, sure, I can do
                                            >>> that later on down the road. But the way this ability works is it is
                                            >>> chosen, then left alone as it calculates its own bonus.
                                            >>>
                                            >>> Unless you're trying to tell me ADD is going to be deprecated...
                                            >>
                                            >> No plans for that.
                                            >>
                                            >> I prefer using an ability pool because it allows the user to change it
                                            >> later, it doesn't force the user to make a decision at level time, it
                                            >> allows the user to see all the choices and the prereqs which means the user
                                            >> can go and choose other things so he can meet the PRE. With ADD:FEAT and
                                            >> ABILITY you don't see the choices you can't take.
                                            >
                                            > On one hand, that a very good point. On the other, that's a horrible thing to
                                            > allow!

                                            Depends on the circumstance. Suppose you have an ADD:FEAT at first level and
                                            one of the Feats has a PRESKILL in it. The rules say you can choose your
                                            skills and feats in any order but with ADD:FEAT you force the user to choose
                                            the feat first and they may never even be aware of the feat with the
                                            PRESKILL which they could qualify for if they were allowed to spend skill
                                            points first.

                                            > This came up in a game actually. A guy started out as a LV 3 Human Rogue. He
                                            > took Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, and Quick Draw for his first 3 feats.
                                            >
                                            > Problem: How could he choose all 3 of those if his BAB at LV 1 was +0 and all
                                            > 3 feats require a BAB of +1?
                                            >
                                            > Now, I know in PCGen, there's an option to enforce spending of skill points
                                            > and feats before leveling up further. But you can see in the above example
                                            > how that breaks game mechanics. But that's another story...

                                            OK so you acknowledge that we have a feature that prevents the problem
                                            described if the user is willing to use it, so what's the problem?

                                            >> If it is a feature which needs to be chosen at level time I like to use
                                            >> TEMPLATE:CHOOSE because if there is only one valid choice it gets added
                                            >> without popping a chooser. The other advantage to templates is that when
                                            >> the parent object is removed all the templates go with it, that's not
                                            >> always so with ADD (although it's getting better).
                                            >
                                            > Oy... That's like saying "TEMPLATES are a workaround for ADD". Forgive my
                                            > distaste at such a statement, but... bleh.

                                            Not really, if you are using hidden objects who cares what they are called.
                                            I just use what works best.
                                            --
                                            ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
                                            ~ PCGen Board of Directors
                                            ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
                                          • Michael W. Fender
                                            Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... Hence class and racial feat pool. I get that. I guess I wasn t clear on why I was using
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Jan 6, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                                              Archive found in file
                                              > Michael W. Fender scribed:
                                              > > Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
                                              > > Archive found in file
                                              > >
                                              > >> Michael W. Fender scribed:
                                              > >>>> Why not add an Ability pool? We're trying to move away from using ADD.
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> Eh, ADD:ABILITY works for my purposes for now. I mean, sure, I can do
                                              > >>> that later on down the road. But the way this ability works is it is
                                              > >>> chosen, then left alone as it calculates its own bonus.
                                              > >>>
                                              > >>> Unless you're trying to tell me ADD is going to be deprecated...
                                              > >>
                                              > >> No plans for that.
                                              > >>
                                              > >> I prefer using an ability pool because it allows the user to change it
                                              > >> later, it doesn't force the user to make a decision at level time, it
                                              > >> allows the user to see all the choices and the prereqs which means the
                                              > >> user can go and choose other things so he can meet the PRE. With
                                              > >> ADD:FEAT and ABILITY you don't see the choices you can't take.
                                              > >
                                              > > On one hand, that a very good point. On the other, that's a horrible
                                              > > thing to allow!
                                              >
                                              > Depends on the circumstance. Suppose you have an ADD:FEAT at first level
                                              > and one of the Feats has a PRESKILL in it. The rules say you can choose
                                              > your skills and feats in any order but with ADD:FEAT you force the user to
                                              > choose the feat first and they may never even be aware of the feat with the
                                              > PRESKILL which they could qualify for if they were allowed to spend skill
                                              > points first.

                                              Hence class and racial feat pool. I get that. I guess I wasn't clear on why
                                              I was using the ADD: tag anyway. When they reach a certain level, the ability
                                              kicks in and they make their choice. Since the only prerequisite is a prereq
                                              they have no direct control over (their level), who really needs a pool? Then
                                              I suddenly realize right now "What would happen if they lost a level?"
                                              Curses... Time to go rework that feat...

                                              > > This came up in a game actually. A guy started out as a LV 3 Human
                                              > > Rogue. He took Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, and Quick Draw for his
                                              > > first 3 feats.
                                              > >
                                              > > Problem: How could he choose all 3 of those if his BAB at LV 1 was +0 and
                                              > > all 3 feats require a BAB of +1?
                                              > >
                                              > > Now, I know in PCGen, there's an option to enforce spending of skill
                                              > > points and feats before leveling up further. But you can see in the
                                              > > above example how that breaks game mechanics. But that's another
                                              > > story...
                                              >
                                              > OK so you acknowledge that we have a feature that prevents the problem
                                              > described if the user is willing to use it, so what's the problem?

                                              ANOTHER STORY, ANOTHER DAY!!! :p

                                              Seriously, though, it really boils down to a house rule. I'm just saying, I
                                              see the pros and cons of such an option.

                                              > >> If it is a feature which needs to be chosen at level time I like to use
                                              > >> TEMPLATE:CHOOSE because if there is only one valid choice it gets added
                                              > >> without popping a chooser. The other advantage to templates is that when
                                              > >> the parent object is removed all the templates go with it, that's not
                                              > >> always so with ADD (although it's getting better).
                                              > >
                                              > > Oy... That's like saying "TEMPLATES are a workaround for ADD". Forgive
                                              > > my distaste at such a statement, but... bleh.
                                              >
                                              > Not really, if you are using hidden objects who cares what they are called.
                                              > I just use what works best.

                                              Eh, two sides of the same coin. Life goes on ^^
                                              --
                                              Fluxxdog

                                              The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                                              think.
                                            • Tom Parker
                                              ... horrible thing to ... It s a defect - there are a good handful or more of issues like this where things can be violated if you want strict rules
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Jan 7, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Michael W. Fender"
                                                <fluxxdog@...> wrote:
                                                > On one hand, that a very good point. On the other, that's a
                                                horrible thing to
                                                > allow!

                                                It's a defect - there are a good handful or more of issues like this
                                                where things can be violated if you want strict rules adherence... and
                                                the goal is to clean them up once we have a core that actually tracks
                                                the source of all the points/choices. We can't quite do that today.

                                                TP.
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.