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

Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Modding ABILITYCATEGORYs

Expand Messages
  • Michael W. Fender
    Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... No... ... That s what I m trying to do, but in order to make sure the Wizard has access to
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 8 12:16 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
      Archive found in file
      > Michael W. Fender scribed:
      > >>> The basic premise is to allow a new TYPE of feat for the Wizard Feat
      > >>> pool. And before you say "Well, just put TYPE:Wizard in the feat",
      > >>> there's a very good reason why I don't want to do that.
      > >>
      > >> OK, but what is it?
      > >
      > > The class this is going for is allowed a choice of bonuses feats limited
      > > to Wizards feats, but none of the broad categories. For example,
      > > ItemCreation, Metamagic, or (from Complete Mage) Reserve feats are not
      > > allowable choices. In other words, TYPE:Wizard.
      >
      > So you are trying to MOD the Wizard Feat pool to remove
      > TYPE:ItemCreation.Metamagic from it?

      No...

      > Doesn't seem the right way to go, why no just make a new pool for this
      > class that is JUST TYPE:Wizard?

      That's what I'm trying to do, but in order to make sure the Wizard has access
      to the appropriate feats, I have to be able to MOD the Wizard Feat
      ABILITYCATEGORY so he has access to the new TYPEs of feats he's supposed to
      have access to while the other class doesn't.

      I should end up having something like this:
      ABILITYCATEGORY:Wizard Feat.MOD TYPE:Whatever.New.Stuff.Reserve
      ABILITYCATEGORY:New Class Feat TYPE:Wizard

      > > Honestly, this also brings up the issue of the
      > > redundancy of labeling Brew Potion (and other such feats) as both an
      > > ItemCreation and Wizard feat since the ABILITYCATEGORY already defines
      > > those types as inclusive, but that's for another day ^^
      >
      > Probably it was to make the ADD:FEAT tag we used to use for that short and
      > sweet.

      So would it be OK to put in a DATA FReq to remove that redundancy? Keep the
      code neat and appropriate to the rules and all that. For example, with the
      RSRD:
      "At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, a wizard gains a bonus feat. At each such
      opportunity, she can choose a metamagic feat, an item creation feat, or Spell
      Mastery."
      ...meaning Spell Mastery really should be the only feat in the basics listed
      as a TYPE:Wizard feat. Since we have the pools, I'd think this would be the
      better way to go. And such a clean up should not affect any characters since
      the feat pools were implemented since all the ItemCreation and Metamagic feats
      qualify on those types regardless of the Wizard type.

      > >> Offhand that looks like the easiest way to go. I take
      > >> it you tried MODing ABILITYCATEGORY and it didn't work?
      > >
      > > No, I hadn't. I went to make sure it was allowable first, since I've
      > > been told "If it's not in the docs, it shouldn't work" and since I didn't
      > > see mention in the docs, I figured I'd ask. And for the record, when I
      > > try this line:
      > >
      > > ABILITYCATEGORY:Wizard Feat.MOD TYPE:Fighter
      > >
      > > ...I get this error:
      > >
      > > LSTERROR TYPE is not valid in 'parent' category Wizard Feat.MOD of
      > > file:/home/fluxxdog/pcgen/data/homebrew/massive/FeatsAbil/NewAbilityCat.l
      > >st.
      >
      > So it doesn't work but really I don't see a need for it as there are easy
      > way around that as I suggested above.

      See above...
      --
      Fluxxdog

      The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
      think.
    • Eddy Anthony
      ... OK so why involve the Wizard pool at all? Just make a new pool and a new type for that pool and MOD the feats with the new type. The sole purpose of the
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 8 12:21 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael W. Fender scribed:

        >> Doesn't seem the right way to go, why no just make a new pool for this
        >> class that is JUST TYPE:Wizard?
        >
        > That's what I'm trying to do, but in order to make sure the Wizard has access
        > to the appropriate feats, I have to be able to MOD the Wizard Feat
        > ABILITYCATEGORY so he has access to the new TYPEs of feats he's supposed to
        > have access to while the other class doesn't.

        OK so why involve the Wizard pool at all? Just make a new pool and a new
        type for that pool and MOD the feats with the new type.

        The sole purpose of the Wizard type is to make a feat part of the Wizard
        bonus feat list, it sounds like you are trying to expand that usage.
        --
        ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
        ~ PCGen Board of Directors
        ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
      • Michael W. Fender
        Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... Heh, here s the funny part about that... That d mean going through over 50 sources we use
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 8 12:40 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
          Archive found in file
          > Michael W. Fender scribed:
          > >> Doesn't seem the right way to go, why no just make a new pool for this
          > >> class that is JUST TYPE:Wizard?
          > >
          > > That's what I'm trying to do, but in order to make sure the Wizard has
          > > access to the appropriate feats, I have to be able to MOD the Wizard Feat
          > > ABILITYCATEGORY so he has access to the new TYPEs of feats he's supposed
          > > to have access to while the other class doesn't.
          >
          > OK so why involve the Wizard pool at all? Just make a new pool and a new
          > type for that pool and MOD the feats with the new type.
          >
          > The sole purpose of the Wizard type is to make a feat part of the Wizard
          > bonus feat list, it sounds like you are trying to expand that usage.

          Heh, here's the funny part about that... That'd mean going through over 50
          sources we use and altering those feats in each one, not to mention making
          sure future additions abide by that as well. I'm not trying to reinvent the
          wheel here, I'm just trying to smooth the edges :)

          In any case, using MOD for an ABILITYCATEGORY is going to have be a FReq,
          right?
          --
          Fluxxdog

          The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
          think.
        • Andrew Maitland
          Yes, that would be a FREQ. Might as well go the full mile if you re going to freq this: Add .MOD to ABILITYCATEGORY Add .CLEAR to ABILITYCATEGORY Add .COPY to
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 8 12:48 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, that would be a FREQ.

            Might as well go the full mile if you're going to freq this:

            Add .MOD to ABILITYCATEGORY
            Add .CLEAR to ABILITYCATEGORY
            Add .COPY to ABILITYCATEGORY

            Does that cover your foreseeable needs?

            Let me know if this is what we want.

            Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
            Admin Silverback, PCGen Board of Directors
            Data Chimp, Docs Tamarin
            Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"



            Michael W. Fender wrote:
            > Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
            > Archive found in file
            >
            >> Michael W. Fender scribed:
            >>
            >>>> Doesn't seem the right way to go, why no just make a new pool for this
            >>>> class that is JUST TYPE:Wizard?
            >>>>
            >>> That's what I'm trying to do, but in order to make sure the Wizard has
            >>> access to the appropriate feats, I have to be able to MOD the Wizard Feat
            >>> ABILITYCATEGORY so he has access to the new TYPEs of feats he's supposed
            >>> to have access to while the other class doesn't.
            >>>
            >> OK so why involve the Wizard pool at all? Just make a new pool and a new
            >> type for that pool and MOD the feats with the new type.
            >>
            >> The sole purpose of the Wizard type is to make a feat part of the Wizard
            >> bonus feat list, it sounds like you are trying to expand that usage.
            >>
            >
            > Heh, here's the funny part about that... That'd mean going through over 50
            > sources we use and altering those feats in each one, not to mention making
            > sure future additions abide by that as well. I'm not trying to reinvent the
            > wheel here, I'm just trying to smooth the edges :)
            >
            > In any case, using MOD for an ABILITYCATEGORY is going to have be a FReq,
            > right?
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Eddy Anthony
            ... I don t follow. What would mean making this large number of changes? Perhaps some confusion follows from the fact that types are used for different things.
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 8 12:52 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Michael W. Fender scribed:

              > Accessing archive from "Eddy Anthony"...
              > Archive found in file
              >> Michael W. Fender scribed:
              >>>> Doesn't seem the right way to go, why no just make a new pool for this
              >>>> class that is JUST TYPE:Wizard?
              >>>
              >>> That's what I'm trying to do, but in order to make sure the Wizard has
              >>> access to the appropriate feats, I have to be able to MOD the Wizard Feat
              >>> ABILITYCATEGORY so he has access to the new TYPEs of feats he's supposed
              >>> to have access to while the other class doesn't.
              >>
              >> OK so why involve the Wizard pool at all? Just make a new pool and a new
              >> type for that pool and MOD the feats with the new type.
              >>
              >> The sole purpose of the Wizard type is to make a feat part of the Wizard
              >> bonus feat list, it sounds like you are trying to expand that usage.
              >
              > Heh, here's the funny part about that... That'd mean going through over 50
              > sources we use and altering those feats in each one, not to mention making
              > sure future additions abide by that as well. I'm not trying to reinvent the
              > wheel here, I'm just trying to smooth the edges :)

              I don't follow. What would mean making this large number of changes?

              Perhaps some confusion follows from the fact that types are used for
              different things. General, Itemcreation and Metamagic represent groups of
              feats defined by the Source text, while Fighter and Wizard are types we data
              monkeys have created to group bonus feat pools. Game wise there are no
              Wizard type feats, only feats Wizards can take as a bonus feat. So a feat
              that has Wizard.Itemcreation is not really a redundancy as it is an
              overlapping of purposes.

              > In any case, using MOD for an ABILITYCATEGORY is going to have be a FReq,
              > right?

              Yes, I'm just unconvinced of it's need.
              --
              ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
              ~ PCGen Board of Directors
              ~ Content Silverback, Chair Second
            • Michael W. Fender
              Accessing archive from Eddy Anthony ... Archive found in file ... My groups have access to over 50 sources that we use for our campaigns that I have to code
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 8 1:48 PM
              • 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:
                > >>>> Doesn't seem the right way to go, why no just make a new pool for this
                > >>>> class that is JUST TYPE:Wizard?
                > >>>
                > >>> That's what I'm trying to do, but in order to make sure the Wizard has
                > >>> access to the appropriate feats, I have to be able to MOD the Wizard
                > >>> Feat ABILITYCATEGORY so he has access to the new TYPEs of feats he's
                > >>> supposed to have access to while the other class doesn't.
                > >>
                > >> OK so why involve the Wizard pool at all? Just make a new pool and a new
                > >> type for that pool and MOD the feats with the new type.
                > >>
                > >> The sole purpose of the Wizard type is to make a feat part of the Wizard
                > >> bonus feat list, it sounds like you are trying to expand that usage.
                > >
                > > Heh, here's the funny part about that... That'd mean going through over
                > > 50 sources we use and altering those feats in each one, not to mention
                > > making sure future additions abide by that as well. I'm not trying to
                > > reinvent the wheel here, I'm just trying to smooth the edges :)
                >
                > I don't follow. What would mean making this large number of changes?

                My groups have access to over 50 sources that we use for our campaigns that I
                have to code fore, a lot of the WotC material.

                > Perhaps some confusion follows from the fact that types are used for
                > different things. General, Itemcreation and Metamagic represent groups of
                > feats defined by the Source text, while Fighter and Wizard are types we
                > data monkeys have created to group bonus feat pools. Game wise there are no
                > Wizard type feats, only feats Wizards can take as a bonus feat. So a feat
                > that has Wizard.Itemcreation is not really a redundancy as it is an
                > overlapping of purposes.

                As things work now, having TYPE:Wizard identifies it as part of the Wizard
                Feat pool. Having TYPE:ItemCreation identifies it as part of the Wizard Feat
                pool. If the only purpose of TYPE:Wizard is to identify it as part of the
                Wizard Feat pool, then having TYPE:Wizard.ItemCreation makes the Wizard type
                redundant. Actually, unnecessary.

                It's also inconsistent. The RSRD lists feats as Wizard.Metamagic or
                Wizard.ItemCreation, but other sources don't add the Wizard type. For
                example:

                /data/d20ogl/fantasyflightgames/legendsandlairs/spellsandspellcraft/spellsspellcraft_feats.lst
                ItemCreation feats are not typed as Wizard feats

                > > In any case, using MOD for an ABILITYCATEGORY is going to have be a FReq,
                > > right?
                >
                > Yes, I'm just unconvinced of it's need.

                I found the book of Eldritch Might. This is an example of where a MOD could
                be used easily. Eldritch feats can be chosen as Wizard bonus feats simply by
                TYPE:Eldritch. Why should dozens of adjustments be made to implement one
                adjustment? The rule of "Wizard may choose Eldritch feats" is suggested as
                optional. A person should be able to have such a simple adjustment at hand.
                Why MOD every single Eldritch feat to allow a Wizard to choose it when a MOD
                to the Wizard Feat ABILITYCATEGORY will not only ensure those work properly
                but future ones without having to detail future feats? "Why is this new
                Eldritch feat I made not showing up for my Wizard? All the other do!"
                MODding the ABILITYCATEGORY would take care of that for good.

                Base line is, making the MOD available in such a manner can make the LST
                coding easier for home users, kinda like how templates are routinely used to
                implement different house rules.
                --
                Fluxxdog

                The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                think.
              • Tir Gwaith
                ... I am. Pathfinder has the ABILITYLIST tag, which specifies a set a feats w/ specific choices of those feats. If I want to modify the Fey Bloodline, I d have
                Message 7 of 22 , Feb 8 2:54 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  >> In any case, using MOD for an ABILITYCATEGORY is going to have be a FReq,
                  >> right?
                  >
                  > Yes, I'm just unconvinced of it's need.

                  I am.

                  Pathfinder has the ABILITYLIST tag, which specifies a set a feats w/
                  specific choices of those feats.

                  If I want to modify the Fey Bloodline, I'd have to make a new
                  CATEGORY, and change all the references to BONUS:ABILITYPOOL|Fey
                  Bloodline Feat| to my new one. All to add Skill Focus(Knowledge (The
                  Planes)) to the list of choices (for say, a campaign that makes Fey
                  more 'other-worldly'...

                  That's jumping through hoops. Something I associate with a work-around.

                  As an Aside: TYPE:Wizard was not done for Spell Mastery - the
                  original had it set up as an addition to TYPEs in the ADD:FEAT. The
                  TYPE reference was added for a FReq for support for ppl that wanted to
                  use Complete ?Mage? - where some extra feats were granted to the list
                  of choices, with specific Specialists getting other options....

                  --
                  Tir Gwaith
                  PCGen LST Chimp
                • Michael W. Fender
                  Accessing archive from Tir Gwaith ... Archive found in file ... ...whereas a MOD could just let you add the Skill Focus without a circus trick. ... One feat
                  Message 8 of 22 , Feb 8 4:38 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Accessing archive from "Tir Gwaith"...
                    Archive found in file
                    > >> In any case, using MOD for an ABILITYCATEGORY is going to have be a
                    > >> FReq, right?
                    > >
                    > > Yes, I'm just unconvinced of it's need.
                    >
                    > I am.
                    >
                    > Pathfinder has the ABILITYLIST tag, which specifies a set a feats w/
                    > specific choices of those feats.
                    >
                    > If I want to modify the Fey Bloodline, I'd have to make a new
                    > CATEGORY, and change all the references to BONUS:ABILITYPOOL|Fey
                    > Bloodline Feat| to my new one. All to add Skill Focus(Knowledge (The
                    > Planes)) to the list of choices (for say, a campaign that makes Fey
                    > more 'other-worldly'...
                    >
                    > That's jumping through hoops. Something I associate with a work-around.

                    ...whereas a MOD could just let you add the Skill Focus without a circus
                    trick.

                    > As an Aside: TYPE:Wizard was not done for Spell Mastery - the
                    > original had it set up as an addition to TYPEs in the ADD:FEAT. The
                    > TYPE reference was added for a FReq for support for ppl that wanted to
                    > use Complete ?Mage? - where some extra feats were granted to the list
                    > of choices, with specific Specialists getting other options....

                    One feat I'm looking at from Complete Mage that you're talking about requires
                    Spell Focus (Illusion) and Illusionist level 1st (PREFEAT and PRECLASS, to be
                    sure), but something like that would certainly have to have TYPE:Wizard to
                    make sure it would show up in the list of Wizard feats.

                    That's what I was talking about with the redundancy. A Metamagic feat doesn't
                    need TYPE:Wizard now. Put simply: Each Metamagic and ItemCreation type in the
                    RSRD is taking up extra memory with TYPE:Wizard for no rational reason now
                    that the ability pools have been added.

                    Trackers have been raised for the .MOD and for .CLEAR[ALL] per private
                    discussion with LegacyKing at:
                    https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2580529&group_id=25576&atid=384722
                    https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2580532&group_id=25576&atid=384722

                    I'll let higher up have final say from there :p However, I still have to
                    question whether a FReq for cleaning up unneeded Wizard types should be made.
                    If they're not needed anymore with the ItemCreation and Metamagic feats,
                    should we leave them be or get rid of them before they actually do cause a
                    problem?
                    --
                    Fluxxdog

                    The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                    think.
                  • Tom Parker
                    As you ve found, this doesn t work. As far as a FREQ, I feel this is a challenging problem, as it builds on an already difficult foundation (and potentially
                    Message 9 of 22 , Feb 8 4:57 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      As you've found, this doesn't work.

                      As far as a FREQ, I feel this is a challenging problem, as it builds
                      on an already difficult foundation (and potentially violates a deeply
                      held assumption about Ability Categories - mainly that they exist
                      before they are used)

                      The addition of .MOD changes that - for many reasons. The ability to
                      use CATEGORY, or alter the key of the Ability Category in a .MOD
                      wreaks havoc on the pre-constructed assumption. (And no, preventing
                      the use of certain tokens in a .MOD doesn't make this problem easier;
                      as we have no code that does that today, it only makes it a different,
                      and potentially more difficult, problem)

                      Already, our data is in a position where changes I plan to make in
                      5.17 will cause errors due to references to non-existent ability
                      categories (exposing a similar problem that already exists in our
                      current data)

                      The challenge is that "Ability Category" is not simply an object like
                      other objects, it is a rather deeply rooted object, upon which
                      Abilities are built.

                      The problem is that there are certain game modes (35e) that reference
                      some AbilityCategories (e.g. Special Ability) that are not in the game
                      mode.

                      ...and before anyone starts making claims about it being in the RSRD,
                      *it doesn't matter*. To the game mode, those ability category files
                      don't exist (Game modes load when PCGen is launched)

                      Therefore, the 35e gamemode places a dependency on the datasets which
                      use it (in particular, to implement the "Special Ability" category).
                      This is - in my opinion - less than ideal (especially since we don't
                      have a method of documenting those things), and if the PRExxx tokens
                      were up to the standard of the rebuilt tokens, then this would already
                      be a problem.

                      This will result in one of two things occurring in 5.17:
                      (1) The data gets updated to put "Special Ability" back into the Game
                      Mode to avoid preconstruction.
                      (2) The input system and core get rebuilt to allow for deferred
                      creation of all ability category references (with all of the penalties
                      of dereferencing)

                      Either way, this issue needs to get resolved in order to even be able
                      to define how a .MOD/.COPY/.FORGET etc. would behave.

                      TP.
                    • Tir Gwaith
                      ... Which means all abilitycategory.lst files get loaded, .MOD d, etc. FIRST, then move on to start loading all other files. ... See below....
                      Message 10 of 22 , Feb 8 5:13 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > As far as a FREQ, I feel this is a challenging problem, as it builds
                        > on an already difficult foundation (and potentially violates a deeply
                        > held assumption about Ability Categories - mainly that they exist
                        > before they are used)

                        Which means all abilitycategory.lst files get loaded, .MOD'd, etc.
                        FIRST, then move on to start loading all other files.

                        > The addition of .MOD changes that - for many reasons. The ability to
                        > use CATEGORY, or alter the key of the Ability Category in a .MOD
                        > wreaks havoc on the pre-constructed assumption. (And no, preventing
                        > the use of certain tokens in a .MOD doesn't make this problem easier;
                        > as we have no code that does that today, it only makes it a different,
                        > and potentially more difficult, problem)

                        See below....

                        <snip some other good stuff, but not needed to repeat here.>

                        > Therefore, the 35e gamemode places a dependency on the datasets which
                        > use it (in particular, to implement the "Special Ability" category).
                        > This is - in my opinion - less than ideal (especially since we don't
                        > have a method of documenting those things), and if the PRExxx tokens
                        > were up to the standard of the rebuilt tokens, then this would already
                        > be a problem.
                        >
                        > This will result in one of two things occurring in 5.17:
                        > (1) The data gets updated to put "Special Ability" back into the Game
                        > Mode to avoid preconstruction.
                        > (2) The input system and core get rebuilt to allow for deferred
                        > creation of all ability category references (with all of the penalties
                        > of dereferencing)

                        I didn't know the Parent "Special Ability" was removed from GameMode.
                        That doesn't really make sense to me. (For that matter, the GameMode
                        references a specific Data object - Uncanny Dodge - which gets weird
                        for a GameMode..)

                        Penalties of dereferencing besides slowness in recalculation are? I
                        can guess, but I think I'd rather have it spelled out so I'm not
                        making bad assumptions.

                        > Either way, this issue needs to get resolved in order to even be able
                        > to define how a .MOD/.COPY/.FORGET etc. would behave.

                        Personally, I'd leave the Parent's un-moddable, and allow the
                        Child-nodes re-definable.

                        We are getting into the messy business discussed when we first asked
                        for GameMode stuff in PCC references (I think it was the Rules file
                        discussion where it first game up) - changing stuff gets _MESSY_.

                        I personally see the parent definitions as a part of defining an DB
                        array, and the children (TYPE filter, now ABILITYLIST) as a relational
                        link. Changing a relational link means re-calculating what is linked
                        and what isn't. Re-defining a DB array means dumping memory and
                        basically starting over (or losing data).

                        --
                        Tir Gwaith
                        PCGen LST Chimp
                      • Tir Gwaith
                        ... Not needed anymore.. Ok, I m going to have to ponder that a bit. I now see we added TYPE:Wizard to all the ItemCreation and Metamagic feats. Makes it a
                        Message 11 of 22 , Feb 8 5:16 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > I'll let higher up have final say from there :p However, I still have to
                          > question whether a FReq for cleaning up unneeded Wizard types should be made.
                          > If they're not needed anymore with the ItemCreation and Metamagic feats,
                          > should we leave them be or get rid of them before they actually do cause a
                          > problem?

                          Not needed anymore.. Ok, I'm going to have to ponder that a bit. I
                          now see we added TYPE:Wizard to all the ItemCreation and Metamagic
                          feats. Makes it a bit like the MSRD type set-up, and I'm not exactly
                          sure why that was done, unless it was someone's idea of help on the UI
                          side. We've done that with a number of Equipment TYPEs....

                          --
                          Tir Gwaith
                          PCGen LST Chimp
                        • Michael W. Fender
                          Accessing archive from Tom Parker ... Archive found in file ... I see what you re saying. Case in point, the AC Types in the 35e game mode: ACTYPE:Flatfooted
                          Message 12 of 22 , Feb 8 5:23 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Accessing archive from "Tom Parker"...
                            Archive found in file
                            > As you've found, this doesn't work.
                            >
                            > As far as a FREQ, I feel this is a challenging problem, as it builds
                            > on an already difficult foundation (and potentially violates a deeply
                            > held assumption about Ability Categories - mainly that they exist
                            > before they are used)
                            >
                            > The addition of .MOD changes that - for many reasons. The ability to
                            > use CATEGORY, or alter the key of the Ability Category in a .MOD
                            > wreaks havoc on the pre-constructed assumption. (And no, preventing
                            > the use of certain tokens in a .MOD doesn't make this problem easier;
                            > as we have no code that does that today, it only makes it a different,
                            > and potentially more difficult, problem)
                            >
                            > Already, our data is in a position where changes I plan to make in
                            > 5.17 will cause errors due to references to non-existent ability
                            > categories (exposing a similar problem that already exists in our
                            > current data)
                            >
                            > The challenge is that "Ability Category" is not simply an object like
                            > other objects, it is a rather deeply rooted object, upon which
                            > Abilities are built.
                            >
                            > The problem is that there are certain game modes (35e) that reference
                            > some AbilityCategories (e.g. Special Ability) that are not in the game
                            > mode.

                            I see what you're saying. Case in point, the AC Types in the 35e game mode:
                            ACTYPE:Flatfooted ADD:TOTAL REMOVE:Ability|
                            PRESTAT:1,DEX=10|!PREABILITY:1,CATEGORY=Special Ability,Uncanny Dodge
                            REMOVE:Dodge|!PREABILITY:1,CATEGORY=Special Ability,Uncanny Dodge

                            It's already referencing a Special Ability, one that, in fact, doesn't exist
                            until the RSRD is loaded. The only ability categories that are already
                            defined in the game mode are FEAT and Internal.

                            > ...and before anyone starts making claims about it being in the RSRD,
                            > *it doesn't matter*. To the game mode, those ability category files
                            > don't exist (Game modes load when PCGen is launched)
                            >
                            > Therefore, the 35e gamemode places a dependency on the datasets which
                            > use it (in particular, to implement the "Special Ability" category).
                            > This is - in my opinion - less than ideal (especially since we don't
                            > have a method of documenting those things), and if the PRExxx tokens
                            > were up to the standard of the rebuilt tokens, then this would already
                            > be a problem.

                            Circular dependency. A needs B, B needs A, but you can't load one without the
                            other. Ewww...

                            > This will result in one of two things occurring in 5.17:
                            > (1) The data gets updated to put "Special Ability" back into the Game
                            > Mode to avoid preconstruction.

                            I'd be lying if I didn't say this should be the case. IMHO, since a vast
                            number of abilties depend on that category alone, let alone the use of the
                            category in the game mode itself, it should exist with the game mode.
                            Question though: As far the ACTYPE tag goes, if a data set is loaded that
                            didn't have Uncanny Dodge at all, would PCGen throw an error?

                            > (2) The input system and core get rebuilt to allow for deferred
                            > creation of all ability category references (with all of the penalties
                            > of dereferencing)

                            And that sounds like a lot of work that shouldn't have to be done.

                            > Either way, this issue needs to get resolved in order to even be able
                            > to define how a .MOD/.COPY/.FORGET etc. would behave.

                            --
                            Fluxxdog

                            The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                            think.
                          • Tom Parker
                            ... that ... No, but it should. It only succeeds because the PRExxx tokens are not rebuilt tokens. Once that changes in 5.17, then yes, it would (as it
                            Message 13 of 22 , Feb 8 5:25 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Michael W. Fender"
                              <fluxxdog@...> wrote:
                              > Question though: As far the ACTYPE tag goes, if a data set is loaded
                              that
                              > didn't have Uncanny Dodge at all, would PCGen throw an error?

                              No, but it should. It only succeeds because the PRExxx tokens are not
                              "rebuilt" tokens. Once that changes in 5.17, then yes, it would (as
                              it should) produce an "Unconstructed Reference"

                              TP.
                            • Michael W. Fender
                              Accessing archive from Tir Gwaith ... Archive found in file ... What I understood from what Eddy was saying, the only purpose of it was to have feats with the
                              Message 14 of 22 , Feb 8 5:28 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Accessing archive from "Tir Gwaith"...
                                Archive found in file
                                > > I'll let higher up have final say from there :p However, I still have to
                                > > question whether a FReq for cleaning up unneeded Wizard types should be
                                > > made. If they're not needed anymore with the ItemCreation and Metamagic
                                > > feats, should we leave them be or get rid of them before they actually do
                                > > cause a problem?
                                >
                                > Not needed anymore.. Ok, I'm going to have to ponder that a bit. I
                                > now see we added TYPE:Wizard to all the ItemCreation and Metamagic
                                > feats. Makes it a bit like the MSRD type set-up, and I'm not exactly
                                > sure why that was done, unless it was someone's idea of help on the UI
                                > side. We've done that with a number of Equipment TYPEs....

                                What I understood from what Eddy was saying, the only purpose of it was to
                                have feats with the 'Wizard type show up as a "Wizard Feat". Such as for
                                CHOOSE or ADD tags. Using it with an ItemCreation/Metamagic type feat is
                                pointless now, and with other LST files, this does not seem to be the standard
                                as those feats are listed as only ItemCreation/Metamagic, no Wizard.

                                --
                                Fluxxdog

                                The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                                think.
                              • Tom Parker
                                ... This sounds simple, but is very different from how we load data today... thus will require us to move around processing in order to ensure that behavior
                                Message 15 of 22 , Feb 8 5:43 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Tir Gwaith <Tir.Gwaith@...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > Which means all abilitycategory.lst files get loaded, .MOD'd, etc.
                                  > FIRST, then move on to start loading all other files.

                                  This sounds simple, but is very different from how we load data
                                  today... thus will require us to move around processing in order to
                                  ensure that behavior (which brings up risks of breaking other things
                                  that make assumptions based on the current order - such as the
                                  assumption that STATs are pre-built.) Not saying it can't be done,
                                  but it's work and we need to evaluate the impact of that change.

                                  > [Parent "Special Ability" being removed from GameMode]
                                  > doesn't really make sense to me.

                                  Me either, but I didn't notice the reference in the game mode until a
                                  few days ago.

                                  > (For that matter, the GameMode
                                  > references a specific Data object - Uncanny Dodge - which gets weird
                                  > for a GameMode..)

                                  I suspect we'd want to change this to a variable at some point?

                                  > Penalties of dereferencing besides slowness in recalculation are? I
                                  > can guess, but I think I'd rather have it spelled out so I'm not
                                  > making bad assumptions.

                                  To the user, processing time. Memory, too, but that's minor. To me,
                                  I have to rethink processing Abilities from the Ability LST file,
                                  since it's currently indexed by AbilityCategory. I have to think if
                                  indexing by a reference is a problem or not. I'm honestly not sure
                                  given the 5 minutes of thought I've given it so far :)

                                  > > Either way, this issue needs to get resolved in order to even be able
                                  > > to define how a .MOD/.COPY/.FORGET etc. would behave.
                                  >
                                  > Personally, I'd leave the Parent's un-moddable, and allow the
                                  > Child-nodes re-definable.

                                  Neat idea, but this might be harder than just making everything
                                  changeable. Of course, this concept also interacts with the whole
                                  "let's split ability categories into the multiple separate functions
                                  they perform" (This is the whole category/pool discussion/FREQ

                                  TP.
                                • Andrew Maitland
                                  I would venture a guess that these were added the following reasons: ADD:FEAT usage - Homebrews likely still use this method UI - Clean Look for older versions
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Feb 8 6:09 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I would venture a guess that these were added the following reasons:

                                    ADD:FEAT usage - Homebrews likely still use this method
                                    UI - Clean Look for older versions
                                    Overlap of Uses - Any new 'wizard' feat can just add the TYPE:Wizard
                                    to be included in the Old and New systems
                                    Seemed like a good idea at the time.

                                    Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
                                    Admin Silverback, PCGen Board of Directors
                                    Data Chimp, Docs Tamarin
                                    Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"



                                    Michael W. Fender wrote:
                                    > Accessing archive from "Tir Gwaith"...
                                    > Archive found in file
                                    >
                                    >>> I'll let higher up have final say from there :p However, I still have to
                                    >>> question whether a FReq for cleaning up unneeded Wizard types should be
                                    >>> made. If they're not needed anymore with the ItemCreation and Metamagic
                                    >>> feats, should we leave them be or get rid of them before they actually do
                                    >>> cause a problem?
                                    >>>
                                    >> Not needed anymore.. Ok, I'm going to have to ponder that a bit. I
                                    >> now see we added TYPE:Wizard to all the ItemCreation and Metamagic
                                    >> feats. Makes it a bit like the MSRD type set-up, and I'm not exactly
                                    >> sure why that was done, unless it was someone's idea of help on the UI
                                    >> side. We've done that with a number of Equipment TYPEs....
                                    >>
                                    >
                                    > What I understood from what Eddy was saying, the only purpose of it was to
                                    > have feats with the 'Wizard type show up as a "Wizard Feat". Such as for
                                    > CHOOSE or ADD tags. Using it with an ItemCreation/Metamagic type feat is
                                    > pointless now, and with other LST files, this does not seem to be the standard
                                    > as those feats are listed as only ItemCreation/Metamagic, no Wizard.
                                    >
                                    >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • taluroniscandar
                                    ... Just FYI, I am updating my lst files to 5.15 (from .12 or so) I have a .MOD on All Automatics Proficiencies and got the same error as the OP. ...
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Feb 12 1:39 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Maitland
                                      <drew0500@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Yes, that would be a FREQ.
                                      >
                                      > Might as well go the full mile if you're going to freq this:
                                      >
                                      > Add .MOD to ABILITYCATEGORY
                                      > Add .CLEAR to ABILITYCATEGORY
                                      > Add .COPY to ABILITYCATEGORY
                                      >
                                      > Does that cover your foreseeable needs?
                                      >
                                      > Let me know if this is what we want.
                                      >
                                      > ---------

                                      Just FYI, I am updating my lst files to 5.15 (from .12 or so)
                                      I have a .MOD on All Automatics Proficiencies and got the same error
                                      as the OP.

                                      Under the .MOD documentation there is this entry:
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      CATEGORY=Mutation|Weak Immune System.MOD

                                      Modifies an ability of the category Mutation, which is called Weak
                                      Immune System. Another ability of the same name, which belongs to
                                      another category, would not be affected.
                                      -----------------------------------

                                      I changed mine into this format and the pcgen lst loader no longer
                                      complains about the .MOD.

                                      CATEGORY=Special Ability|All Automatic Proficiencies.MOD
                                      [TAB]
                                      AUTO:WEAPONPROF|etc|etc

                                      Havent tried it yet but at least the loader in 5.15.9 thinks this
                                      works. Some of the functionality may already be there.
                                    • Michael W. Fender
                                      Accessing archive from taluroniscandar ... Archive found in file ... I have the same thing for Touch spells. It works perfectly fine now. -- Fluxxdog The
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Feb 12 5:05 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Accessing archive from "taluroniscandar"...
                                        Archive found in file
                                        > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Maitland
                                        >
                                        > <drew0500@...> wrote:
                                        > > Yes, that would be a FREQ.
                                        > >
                                        > > Might as well go the full mile if you're going to freq this:
                                        > >
                                        > > Add .MOD to ABILITYCATEGORY
                                        > > Add .CLEAR to ABILITYCATEGORY
                                        > > Add .COPY to ABILITYCATEGORY
                                        > >
                                        > > Does that cover your foreseeable needs?
                                        > >
                                        > > Let me know if this is what we want.
                                        > >
                                        > > ---------
                                        >
                                        > Just FYI, I am updating my lst files to 5.15 (from .12 or so)
                                        > I have a .MOD on All Automatics Proficiencies and got the same error
                                        > as the OP.
                                        >
                                        > Under the .MOD documentation there is this entry:
                                        > -----------------------------------
                                        > CATEGORY=Mutation|Weak Immune System.MOD
                                        >
                                        > Modifies an ability of the category Mutation, which is called Weak
                                        > Immune System. Another ability of the same name, which belongs to
                                        > another category, would not be affected.
                                        > -----------------------------------
                                        >
                                        > I changed mine into this format and the pcgen lst loader no longer
                                        > complains about the .MOD.
                                        >
                                        > CATEGORY=Special Ability|All Automatic Proficiencies.MOD
                                        > [TAB]
                                        > AUTO:WEAPONPROF|etc|etc

                                        I have the same thing for Touch spells. It works perfectly fine now.

                                        --
                                        Fluxxdog

                                        The worst crime you can commit against another human being is to make them
                                        think.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.