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

Re: Equipment mod lst questions

Expand Messages
  • thpr
    Is this on a piece of equipment where the equipment is actually equipped by the PC? If it is not equipped, the EqMod will not be active. TP.
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Is this on a piece of equipment where the equipment is actually equipped by the PC? If it is not equipped, the EqMod will not be active.

      TP.

      --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "madartiste" wrote:
      >
      > Well, I decided to simplify things considerably to work through the steps and ran into a problem right off the bat: It doesn't look like my variable is actually working.
      >
      > Mechanikal Assist (AC) KEY:MAAC TYPE:Armor DEFINE:MaacNum|4 COST:8000 VISIBLE:QUALIFY ITYPE:Mechanikal.Warcaster SOURCEPAGE:pg. 341 PRETYPE:4,Masterwork,Armor,Warcaster,Mechanikal BONUS:COMBAT|AC|MaacNum|TYPE=Armor.STACK BONUS:EQM|WEIGHTADD|3
      > ASSIGNTOALL:YES
      >
      > Is there ANY reason anyone can spot that would explain why 4 isn't being added to the AC? I tried BONUS:COMBAT|AC|CHA|TYPE=Armor.STACK just for kicks, and that added the CHA modifier to the AC just like it should, so I have NO idea why my defined variable doesn't work even when I've directly assigned a value of 4 to it. Ugh. What am I missing?
      >
      > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi,
      > >
      > > CHOOSE:NUMBER IIRC only works with PREAPPLY.
      > >
      > > Change it to CHOOSE:STRING|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10
      > >
      > > Next COST does not support variables. You need an EQMOD to affect the item cost, or conversely, you
      > > just need to make 10 iterations of the item.
      > >
      > >
      >
    • thpr
      Let s clarify a few things, since I think your original data is very close to what you wanted to achieve: 1) CHOOSE:NUMBER works in EQMODs, e.g. |Deflection
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Let's clarify a few things, since I think your original data is very close to what you wanted to achieve:

        1) CHOOSE:NUMBER works in EQMODs, e.g. |Deflection Bonus in the RSRD.

        2) COST in EqMods is a Formula, so that part is not a problem, e.g. Darkwood in the RSRD.

        The main problem you have in the data is that DEFINE can't take a target (%CHOICE or %LIST will not work there), you have to put it into the cost directly:
        COST:%CHOICE*8000

        (example of this in MSRD Masterwork)

        As a note, limiting as much as possible the use of CHOOSE:STRING is good for your sanity and long term stability of your data. If you encounter a situation where you think it is necessary (and that information is being fed into something other than a text description like DESC, SAB, BENEFIT, etc., please post here or to _experimental so we can understand the scenario.

        TP.


        --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew wrote:
        >
        > Hi,
        >
        > CHOOSE:NUMBER IIRC only works with PREAPPLY.
        >
        > Change it to CHOOSE:STRING|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10
        >
        > Next COST does not support variables. You need an EQMOD to affect the item cost, or conversely, you
        > just need to make 10 iterations of the item.
        >
        > On 1/19/2013 4:57 PM, madartiste wrote:
        > > I think I've figured out that I need to definite a user variable to make #3 happen, but I'm completely stuck on how to actually get it to work. Maybe someone can look at my code and tell me how this should actually look?
        > >
        > > Mechanikal Assist (AC) KEY:MAAC TYPE:Armor DEFINE:MaacNum|%CHOICE CHOOSE:NUMBER|MIN=1|MAX=10|TITLE=AC Bonus
        > > COST:8000*MaacNum VISIBLE:QUALIFY ITYPE:Mechanikal.Warcaster SOURCEPAGE:pg. 341
        > > PRETYPE:4,Masterwork,Armor,Warcaster,Mechanikal BONUS:COMBAT|AC|MAACNUM|TYPE=Armor.STACK BONUS:EQM|WEIGHTADD|3
        > > ASSIGNTOALL:YES
        > >
        > > Basically, the variable MaacNum (just something to call it at the moment) should be equal to whatever number is chosen (from 1 to 10). The AC bonus should be equal to MaacNum and the cost should be 8000 times whatever MaacNum is. Of course, it doesn't actually add to the AC bonus or the cost, so I've obviously got something wrong.
        > >
        > > I've also tried using %1|MaacNum instead based on things I've seen in the code for other settings, but that didn't work either. I guess I just don't know enough to make this happen on my own.
        > >
        > > Thanks for taking a look. If someone can help me make this work, I'll be very grateful!
        > >
        > > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "madartiste" wrote:
        > >> I'm back with more questions, I'm afraid. Ran into some things that I can't seem to solve. I hope you folks can help me out.
        > >>
        > >> 1. Can you use an equipment mod to adjust the range increment penalty of JUST the weapon it's attached to?
        > >>
        > >> 2. Can you use .FORGET to remove equipment mods? I attempted this using the unique KEYs and PCGen threw a fit. It didn't give me any errors when I used the name of the mod, but it didn't do anything. Currently I just have .MOD setting them all to VISIBLE:NO, which works.
        > >>
        > >> 3. I've got a couple of mods that I need to be able to have a person choose a number and have that number be used to adjust the cost AND other things (AC bonus, MAXDEX bonus, SPELL FAILURE, etc.). I had thought I could use something like %CHOICE, but I guess I don't understand the % variable well enough to make it work. Is there a way to use the chosen value in more than one place in the equipment mod record?
        > >>
        > >> I'd appreciate any help I can get! Thanks.
        > >>
        > >> Oh, P.S. If there's anyone out there who's a fan of the d20 Iron Kingdoms setting and would like to help me test my Pathfinder update stuff, just let me know! I'm sure I've got lots of numbers and whatnot wrong somewhere. :)
        > >>
      • madartiste
        Hmm. Okay, that s helpful to know. This is indeed an equipment mod rather than a piece of equipment, just to clarify. Iron Kingdoms uses a weird sort of
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hmm. Okay, that's helpful to know.
          This is indeed an equipment mod rather than a piece of equipment, just to clarify. Iron Kingdoms uses a weird sort of modular system of constructing magical items where you can actually stack the same type of enhancements via Rune Plates.
          The mod I'm working on that's driving me crazy is for a special armor type.
          I had tried using %CHOICE before and it simply wasn't working. But I chose to DEFINE a variable since I needed to use the number from the CHOOSE option in more than one place. Since my attempts weren't working, I figured I needed to store the number from CHOOSE somewhere in order to use it in more than one place. But maybe that's not the case. I'll give it another shot with %CHOICE in the COST.

          Just for clarification, could I use %CHOICE in, say, BONUS:VAR|MaacNUM|%CHOICE in order to assign the choice to a variable? I might not need that here, but it would be nice to know if that's a possibility.

          Thank you all for being so patient and helpful! This program is really awesome and offers a lot of flexibility.

          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "thpr" wrote:
          >
          >
          > Let's clarify a few things, since I think your original data is very close to what you wanted to achieve:
          >
          > 1) CHOOSE:NUMBER works in EQMODs, e.g. |Deflection Bonus in the RSRD.
          >
          > 2) COST in EqMods is a Formula, so that part is not a problem, e.g. Darkwood in the RSRD.
          >
          > The main problem you have in the data is that DEFINE can't take a target (%CHOICE or %LIST will not work there), you have to put it into the cost directly:
          > COST:%CHOICE*8000
          >
          > (example of this in MSRD Masterwork)
          >
          > As a note, limiting as much as possible the use of CHOOSE:STRING is good for your sanity and long term stability of your data. If you encounter a situation where you think it is necessary (and that information is being fed into something other than a text description like DESC, SAB, BENEFIT, etc., please post here or to _experimental so we can understand the scenario.
          >
          > TP.
          >
          >
          > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi,
          > >
          > > CHOOSE:NUMBER IIRC only works with PREAPPLY.
          > >
          > > Change it to CHOOSE:STRING|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10
          > >
          > > Next COST does not support variables. You need an EQMOD to affect the item cost, or conversely, you
          > > just need to make 10 iterations of the item.
          > >
          > > On 1/19/2013 4:57 PM, madartiste wrote:
          > > > I think I've figured out that I need to definite a user variable to make #3 happen, but I'm completely stuck on how to actually get it to work. Maybe someone can look at my code and tell me how this should actually look?
          > > >
          > > > Mechanikal Assist (AC) KEY:MAAC TYPE:Armor DEFINE:MaacNum|%CHOICE CHOOSE:NUMBER|MIN=1|MAX=10|TITLE=AC Bonus
          > > > COST:8000*MaacNum VISIBLE:QUALIFY ITYPE:Mechanikal.Warcaster SOURCEPAGE:pg. 341
          > > > PRETYPE:4,Masterwork,Armor,Warcaster,Mechanikal BONUS:COMBAT|AC|MAACNUM|TYPE=Armor.STACK BONUS:EQM|WEIGHTADD|3
          > > > ASSIGNTOALL:YES
          > > >
          > > > Basically, the variable MaacNum (just something to call it at the moment) should be equal to whatever number is chosen (from 1 to 10). The AC bonus should be equal to MaacNum and the cost should be 8000 times whatever MaacNum is. Of course, it doesn't actually add to the AC bonus or the cost, so I've obviously got something wrong.
          > > >
          > > > I've also tried using %1|MaacNum instead based on things I've seen in the code for other settings, but that didn't work either. I guess I just don't know enough to make this happen on my own.
          > > >
          > > > Thanks for taking a look. If someone can help me make this work, I'll be very grateful!
          > > >
          > > > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "madartiste" wrote:
          > > >> I'm back with more questions, I'm afraid. Ran into some things that I can't seem to solve. I hope you folks can help me out.
          > > >>
          > > >> 1. Can you use an equipment mod to adjust the range increment penalty of JUST the weapon it's attached to?
          > > >>
          > > >> 2. Can you use .FORGET to remove equipment mods? I attempted this using the unique KEYs and PCGen threw a fit. It didn't give me any errors when I used the name of the mod, but it didn't do anything. Currently I just have .MOD setting them all to VISIBLE:NO, which works.
          > > >>
          > > >> 3. I've got a couple of mods that I need to be able to have a person choose a number and have that number be used to adjust the cost AND other things (AC bonus, MAXDEX bonus, SPELL FAILURE, etc.). I had thought I could use something like %CHOICE, but I guess I don't understand the % variable well enough to make it work. Is there a way to use the chosen value in more than one place in the equipment mod record?
          > > >>
          > > >> I'd appreciate any help I can get! Thanks.
          > > >>
          > > >> Oh, P.S. If there's anyone out there who's a fan of the d20 Iron Kingdoms setting and would like to help me test my Pathfinder update stuff, just let me know! I'm sure I've got lots of numbers and whatnot wrong somewhere. :)
          > > >>
          >
        • madartiste
          TP, you are my hero for the day! I don t know what I did before, but %CHOICE worked perfectly now. I m sure I had something wrong before. Thank you for saving
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 20, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            TP, you are my hero for the day!
            I don't know what I did before, but %CHOICE worked perfectly now. I'm sure I had something wrong before.
            Thank you for saving my sanity!
            And than you to Andrew too for all the wonderful advice given!


            --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "thpr" wrote:
            >
            >
            > Let's clarify a few things, since I think your original data is very close to what you wanted to achieve:
            >
            > 1) CHOOSE:NUMBER works in EQMODs, e.g. |Deflection Bonus in the RSRD.
            >
            > 2) COST in EqMods is a Formula, so that part is not a problem, e.g. Darkwood in the RSRD.
            >
            > The main problem you have in the data is that DEFINE can't take a target (%CHOICE or %LIST will not work there), you have to put it into the cost directly:
            > COST:%CHOICE*8000
            >
            > (example of this in MSRD Masterwork)
            >
            > As a note, limiting as much as possible the use of CHOOSE:STRING is good for your sanity and long term stability of your data. If you encounter a situation where you think it is necessary (and that information is being fed into something other than a text description like DESC, SAB, BENEFIT, etc., please post here or to _experimental so we can understand the scenario.
            >
            > TP.
            >
            >
            > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi,
            > >
            > > CHOOSE:NUMBER IIRC only works with PREAPPLY.
            > >
            > > Change it to CHOOSE:STRING|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10
            > >
            > > Next COST does not support variables. You need an EQMOD to affect the item cost, or conversely, you
            > > just need to make 10 iterations of the item.
            > >
            > > On 1/19/2013 4:57 PM, madartiste wrote:
            > > > I think I've figured out that I need to definite a user variable to make #3 happen, but I'm completely stuck on how to actually get it to work. Maybe someone can look at my code and tell me how this should actually look?
            > > >
            > > > Mechanikal Assist (AC) KEY:MAAC TYPE:Armor DEFINE:MaacNum|%CHOICE CHOOSE:NUMBER|MIN=1|MAX=10|TITLE=AC Bonus
            > > > COST:8000*MaacNum VISIBLE:QUALIFY ITYPE:Mechanikal.Warcaster SOURCEPAGE:pg. 341
            > > > PRETYPE:4,Masterwork,Armor,Warcaster,Mechanikal BONUS:COMBAT|AC|MAACNUM|TYPE=Armor.STACK BONUS:EQM|WEIGHTADD|3
            > > > ASSIGNTOALL:YES
            > > >
            > > > Basically, the variable MaacNum (just something to call it at the moment) should be equal to whatever number is chosen (from 1 to 10). The AC bonus should be equal to MaacNum and the cost should be 8000 times whatever MaacNum is. Of course, it doesn't actually add to the AC bonus or the cost, so I've obviously got something wrong.
            > > >
            > > > I've also tried using %1|MaacNum instead based on things I've seen in the code for other settings, but that didn't work either. I guess I just don't know enough to make this happen on my own.
            > > >
            > > > Thanks for taking a look. If someone can help me make this work, I'll be very grateful!
            > > >
            > > > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "madartiste" wrote:
            > > >> I'm back with more questions, I'm afraid. Ran into some things that I can't seem to solve. I hope you folks can help me out.
            > > >>
            > > >> 1. Can you use an equipment mod to adjust the range increment penalty of JUST the weapon it's attached to?
            > > >>
            > > >> 2. Can you use .FORGET to remove equipment mods? I attempted this using the unique KEYs and PCGen threw a fit. It didn't give me any errors when I used the name of the mod, but it didn't do anything. Currently I just have .MOD setting them all to VISIBLE:NO, which works.
            > > >>
            > > >> 3. I've got a couple of mods that I need to be able to have a person choose a number and have that number be used to adjust the cost AND other things (AC bonus, MAXDEX bonus, SPELL FAILURE, etc.). I had thought I could use something like %CHOICE, but I guess I don't understand the % variable well enough to make it work. Is there a way to use the chosen value in more than one place in the equipment mod record?
            > > >>
            > > >> I'd appreciate any help I can get! Thanks.
            > > >>
            > > >> Oh, P.S. If there's anyone out there who's a fan of the d20 Iron Kingdoms setting and would like to help me test my Pathfinder update stuff, just let me know! I'm sure I've got lots of numbers and whatnot wrong somewhere. :)
            > > >>
            >
          • thpr
            ... Kind of. It s actually %LIST if you want to assign it to a variable. BONUS:VAR|MaacNUM|%LIST TP.
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 20, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "madartiste" wrote:
              >
              > Just for clarification, could I use %CHOICE in, say, BONUS:VAR|MaacNUM|%CHOICE in order to assign the choice to a variable? I might not need that here, but it would be nice to know if that's a possibility.
              >

              Kind of. It's actually %LIST if you want to assign it to a variable.
              BONUS:VAR|MaacNUM|%LIST

              TP.
            • FerretDave
              Greetings, Just worth noting, previous advise has always been to DEFINE variables at zero first, and then BONUS them to the value you actually want, avoids
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Greetings,
                Just worth noting, previous advise has always been to 'DEFINE' variables at zero first, and then BONUS them to the value you actually want, avoids some sort of potential internal resetting issue or something ;-)

                Cheers
                Dave

                --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "madartiste" wrote:
                >
                > I think I've figured out that I need to definite a user variable to make #3 happen, but I'm completely stuck on how to actually get it to work. Maybe someone can look at my code and tell me how this should actually look?
                >
                > Mechanikal Assist (AC) KEY:MAAC TYPE:Armor DEFINE:MaacNum|%CHOICE CHOOSE:NUMBER|MIN=1|MAX=10|TITLE=AC Bonus
                > COST:8000*MaacNum VISIBLE:QUALIFY ITYPE:Mechanikal.Warcaster SOURCEPAGE:pg. 341
                > PRETYPE:4,Masterwork,Armor,Warcaster,Mechanikal BONUS:COMBAT|AC|MAACNUM|TYPE=Armor.STACK BONUS:EQM|WEIGHTADD|3
                > ASSIGNTOALL:YES
                >
                > Basically, the variable MaacNum (just something to call it at the moment) should be equal to whatever number is chosen (from 1 to 10). The AC bonus should be equal to MaacNum and the cost should be 8000 times whatever MaacNum is. Of course, it doesn't actually add to the AC bonus or the cost, so I've obviously got something wrong.
                >
                > I've also tried using %1|MaacNum instead based on things I've seen in the code for other settings, but that didn't work either. I guess I just don't know enough to make this happen on my own.
                >
                > Thanks for taking a look. If someone can help me make this work, I'll be very grateful!
                >
                > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "madartiste" wrote:
                > >
                > > I'm back with more questions, I'm afraid. Ran into some things that I can't seem to solve. I hope you folks can help me out.
                > >
                > > 1. Can you use an equipment mod to adjust the range increment penalty of JUST the weapon it's attached to?
                > >
                > > 2. Can you use .FORGET to remove equipment mods? I attempted this using the unique KEYs and PCGen threw a fit. It didn't give me any errors when I used the name of the mod, but it didn't do anything. Currently I just have .MOD setting them all to VISIBLE:NO, which works.
                > >
                > > 3. I've got a couple of mods that I need to be able to have a person choose a number and have that number be used to adjust the cost AND other things (AC bonus, MAXDEX bonus, SPELL FAILURE, etc.). I had thought I could use something like %CHOICE, but I guess I don't understand the % variable well enough to make it work. Is there a way to use the chosen value in more than one place in the equipment mod record?
                > >
                > > I'd appreciate any help I can get! Thanks.
                > >
                > > Oh, P.S. If there's anyone out there who's a fan of the d20 Iron Kingdoms setting and would like to help me test my Pathfinder update stuff, just let me know! I'm sure I've got lots of numbers and whatnot wrong somewhere. :)
                > >
                >
              • thpr
                It avoids putting yourself in a situation where you have: DEFINE:Foo|3 DEFINE:Foo|2 on two different objects and have to debug why you re getting 3, or not
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  It avoids putting yourself in a situation where you have:

                  DEFINE:Foo|3

                  DEFINE:Foo|2

                  on two different objects and have to debug why you're getting 3, or not getting 2 or 5 or whatever.

                  TP.

                  --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "FerretDave" wrote:
                  >
                  > Greetings,
                  > Just worth noting, previous advise has always been to 'DEFINE' variables at zero first, and then BONUS them to the value you actually want, avoids some sort of potential internal resetting issue or something ;-)
                  >
                  > Cheers
                  > Dave
                  >
                • Doug Limmer
                  It seems to me, though, that it can be quite useful at times. For instance, different sources of, say, fire resistance don t stack, so using DEFINE for that
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It seems to me, though, that it can be quite useful at times. For
                    instance, different sources of, say, fire resistance don't stack, so
                    using DEFINE for that makes sense to me.

                    DS/DL

                    On 1/21/2013 11:27 AM, thpr wrote:
                    >
                    > It avoids putting yourself in a situation where you have:
                    >
                    > DEFINE:Foo|3
                    >
                    > DEFINE:Foo|2
                    >
                    > on two different objects and have to debug why you're getting 3, or
                    > not getting 2 or 5 or whatever.
                    >
                    > TP.
                    >
                    > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                    > <mailto:PCGenListFileHelp%40yahoogroups.com>, "FerretDave" wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Greetings,
                    > > Just worth noting, previous advise has always been to 'DEFINE'
                    > variables at zero first, and then BONUS them to the value you actually
                    > want, avoids some sort of potential internal resetting issue or
                    > something ;-)
                    > >
                    > > Cheers
                    > > Dave
                    > >
                    >
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Andrew Maitland
                    No. Bad. Just NO. DEFINE should *always* be ZERO. There are very few exceptions to this standard. You want to use the STACKING rules then use TYPE.
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      No. Bad. Just NO.

                      DEFINE should *always* be ZERO. There are very few exceptions to this standard.

                      You want to use the STACKING rules then use TYPE.

                      BONUS:COMBAT|AC|4|TYPE=Deflection
                      BONUS:COMBAT|AC|2|TYPE=Deflection

                      What is your deflection bonus?

                      BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|5|TYPE=Resistance
                      BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|15|TYPE=Resistance


                      What is your Fire Resistance Bonus?

                      Now, what if someone did DEFINE:FireResistanceBonus|5

                      What if your Fire Resistance Bonus now?

                      Would you like to be the one to solve the reason why your Resistance Bonus is
                      wrong by 5?

                      This is why we have standards, so I can know what my results will be every time.

                      Cheers,
                      --
                      Andrew




                      ________________________________
                      From: Doug Limmer <adventure@...>
                      To: PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                      Cc: thpr <thpr@...>
                      Sent: Mon, January 21, 2013 8:29:06 AM
                      Subject: Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Re: Equipment mod lst questions

                      It seems to me, though, that it can be quite useful at times. For
                      instance, different sources of, say, fire resistance don't stack, so
                      using DEFINE for that makes sense to me.

                      DS/DL

                      On 1/21/2013 11:27 AM, thpr wrote:
                      >
                      > It avoids putting yourself in a situation where you have:
                      >
                      > DEFINE:Foo|3
                      >
                      > DEFINE:Foo|2
                      >
                      > on two different objects and have to debug why you're getting 3, or
                      > not getting 2 or 5 or whatever.
                      >
                      > TP.
                      >
                      > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:PCGenListFileHelp%40yahoogroups.com>, "FerretDave" wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Greetings,
                      > > Just worth noting, previous advise has always been to 'DEFINE'
                      > variables at zero first, and then BONUS them to the value you actually
                      > want, avoids some sort of potential internal resetting issue or
                      > something ;-)
                      > >
                      > > Cheers
                      > > Dave
                      > >
                      >
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                      ------------------------------------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • madartiste
                      Oh wow. This is all very useful stuff! I had noted the DEFINE at 0 thing in the documentation, but it s handy to see a little more on why it is that way.
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Oh wow. This is all very useful stuff!
                        I had noted the DEFINE at 0 thing in the documentation, but it's handy to see a little more on why it is that way.
                        Thanks for letting me know about %LIST working with variables. I don't know if I'll need it, but it's always good to know these kinds of things.
                        Thanks!

                        --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                        >
                        > No. Bad. Just NO.
                        >
                        > DEFINE should *always* be ZERO. There are very few exceptions to this standard.
                        >
                        > You want to use the STACKING rules then use TYPE.
                        >
                        > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|4|TYPE=Deflection
                        > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|2|TYPE=Deflection
                        >
                        > What is your deflection bonus?
                        >
                        > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|5|TYPE=Resistance
                        > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|15|TYPE=Resistance
                        >
                        >
                        > What is your Fire Resistance Bonus?
                        >
                        > Now, what if someone did DEFINE:FireResistanceBonus|5
                        >
                        > What if your Fire Resistance Bonus now?
                        >
                        > Would you like to be the one to solve the reason why your Resistance Bonus is
                        > wrong by 5?
                        >
                        > This is why we have standards, so I can know what my results will be every time.
                        >
                        > Cheers,
                        > --
                        > Andrew
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: Doug Limmer
                        > To: PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                        > Cc: thpr
                        > Sent: Mon, January 21, 2013 8:29:06 AM
                        > Subject: Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Re: Equipment mod lst questions
                        >
                        > It seems to me, though, that it can be quite useful at times. For
                        > instance, different sources of, say, fire resistance don't stack, so
                        > using DEFINE for that makes sense to me.
                        >
                        > DS/DL
                        >
                        > On 1/21/2013 11:27 AM, thpr wrote:
                        > >
                        > > It avoids putting yourself in a situation where you have:
                        > >
                        > > DEFINE:Foo|3
                        > >
                        > > DEFINE:Foo|2
                        > >
                        > > on two different objects and have to debug why you're getting 3, or
                        > > not getting 2 or 5 or whatever.
                        > >
                        > > TP.
                        > >
                        > > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                        > > , "FerretDave" wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Greetings,
                        > > > Just worth noting, previous advise has always been to 'DEFINE'
                        > > variables at zero first, and then BONUS them to the value you actually
                        > > want, avoids some sort of potential internal resetting issue or
                        > > something ;-)
                        > > >
                        > > > Cheers
                        > > > Dave
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Doug Limmer
                        ... Why? I ve seen people set up or suggest DEFINE:X|0, BONUS:VAR|X|3 combos that would completely mess up the (no) stacking rules. Why not take advantage of
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 1/21/2013 11:56 AM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                          >
                          > No. Bad. Just NO.
                          >

                          Why?

                          I've seen people set up or suggest DEFINE:X|0, BONUS:VAR|X|3 combos that
                          would completely mess up the (no) stacking rules. Why not take
                          advantage of the way DEFINE is set up to work?

                          Or, if DEFINE should always be zero, why not define the tag as just
                          DEFINE:X, and then always set X to zero, without letting a LST writer do
                          otherwise?

                          Are you suggesting every bonus should have a type, even if there isn't
                          one in the source? Because that's what this seems like this requires.

                          > You want to use the STACKING rules then use TYPE.
                          >
                          But don't we always want to use the stacking rules?

                          >
                          > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|4|TYPE=Deflection
                          > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|2|TYPE=Deflection
                          >
                          > What is your deflection bonus?
                          >

                          Four!

                          > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|5|TYPE=Resistance
                          > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|15|TYPE=Resistance
                          >
                          > What is your Fire Resistance Bonus?
                          >
                          Zero! Because it hasn't been DEFINEd!

                          > Now, what if someone did DEFINE:FireResistanceBonus|5
                          >
                          > What if your Fire Resistance Bonus now?
                          >
                          Twenty! (Is that hard?)

                          Note that everybody that ever defines a fire resistance ability MUST use
                          the exact same type, or combining with other abilities will fail. And
                          that type, especially for energy resistances, is far from obvious.
                          [Resistance bonuses are usually for saving throws.] Why not use DEFINE,
                          when it seems to be perfectly set up to take care of that for me,
                          without me needing to worry about what TYPE somebody else used?

                          >
                          > Would you like to be the one to solve the reason why your Resistance
                          > Bonus is
                          > wrong by 5?
                          >

                          I've already had to do it.

                          >
                          > This is why we have standards, so I can know what my results will be
                          > every time.
                          >

                          Where are these standards? I've yet to find a complete list. You've
                          mentioned a couple of places before that they're scattered between, but
                          do any of them say "always use TYPE=Resistance when using energy
                          resistances"? Or have list of a standard TYPEs for other kinds of
                          variables? If they do, I haven't seen it.

                          DS/DL

                          >



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Andrew Maitland
                          Ah, the debate. Spitfire of challenging the norm. ;) Mind you I m going to skim reply since I m at work. Why DEFINE to 0? Because, another user might want to
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ah, the debate. Spitfire of challenging the norm. ;) Mind you I'm going to skim
                            reply since I'm at work.

                            Why DEFINE to 0? Because, another user might want to negate a bonus, or set up a
                            formula and with the DEFINE always set to x instead of 0 it messes that up. So
                            DEFINE is set up to be 0 as a common courtesy to all those who come after. Trust
                            me, I've had to come after and was annoyed that I couldn't easily negate a
                            DEFINE that wasn't 0. DEFINE is NOT a replacement to the TYPE which is set up
                            to handle Stacking rules, don't use DEFINE to replace stacking rules.

                            DEFINE is set to a formula in one place I'm aware of, Monster DCs for things
                            that aren't changed by feats, or special abilities. (All Poisons are
                            10+CON+(HD/2)) types of things.

                            Your answers below are correct, but only if you aren't granting the Resistance
                            to X ability, otherwise the Base DEFINE is already set to 0 for you.

                            Now if there is a discrepancy in the resistance, then we should address that.

                            Now, where are these rules. Most are housed on the WIKI, under Content/Data
                            Team. Some are found in the Class Files for building these things. One of these
                            days when I'm not swamped, I might consolidate all the standards onto the wiki.
                            But sadly, life keeps me busy enough that as soon as I handle one thing, two
                            more spring up.

                            --
                            Andrew




                            ________________________________
                            From: Doug Limmer <adventure@...>
                            To: PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                            Cc: Andrew Maitland <drew0500@...>
                            Sent: Mon, January 21, 2013 10:26:32 AM
                            Subject: Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Re: Equipment mod lst questions

                            On 1/21/2013 11:56 AM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                            >
                            > No. Bad. Just NO.
                            >

                            Why?

                            I've seen people set up or suggest DEFINE:X|0, BONUS:VAR|X|3 combos that
                            would completely mess up the (no) stacking rules. Why not take
                            advantage of the way DEFINE is set up to work?

                            Or, if DEFINE should always be zero, why not define the tag as just
                            DEFINE:X, and then always set X to zero, without letting a LST writer do
                            otherwise?

                            Are you suggesting every bonus should have a type, even if there isn't
                            one in the source? Because that's what this seems like this requires.

                            > You want to use the STACKING rules then use TYPE.
                            >
                            But don't we always want to use the stacking rules?

                            >
                            > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|4|TYPE=Deflection
                            > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|2|TYPE=Deflection
                            >
                            > What is your deflection bonus?
                            >

                            Four!

                            > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|5|TYPE=Resistance
                            > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|15|TYPE=Resistance
                            >
                            > What is your Fire Resistance Bonus?
                            >
                            Zero! Because it hasn't been DEFINEd!

                            > Now, what if someone did DEFINE:FireResistanceBonus|5
                            >
                            > What if your Fire Resistance Bonus now?
                            >
                            Twenty! (Is that hard?)

                            Note that everybody that ever defines a fire resistance ability MUST use
                            the exact same type, or combining with other abilities will fail. And
                            that type, especially for energy resistances, is far from obvious.
                            [Resistance bonuses are usually for saving throws.] Why not use DEFINE,
                            when it seems to be perfectly set up to take care of that for me,
                            without me needing to worry about what TYPE somebody else used?

                            >
                            > Would you like to be the one to solve the reason why your Resistance
                            > Bonus is
                            > wrong by 5?
                            >

                            I've already had to do it.

                            >
                            > This is why we have standards, so I can know what my results will be
                            > every time.
                            >

                            Where are these standards? I've yet to find a complete list. You've
                            mentioned a couple of places before that they're scattered between, but
                            do any of them say "always use TYPE=Resistance when using energy
                            resistances"? Or have list of a standard TYPEs for other kinds of
                            variables? If they do, I haven't seen it.

                            DS/DL

                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                            ------------------------------------

                            Yahoo! Groups Links



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Doug Limmer
                            I apologize if I sound like I m attacking you; I m just confused and frustrated. ... It s unclear to me how DEFINE not being 0 messes this up. Could you give
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I apologize if I sound like I'm attacking you; I'm just confused and
                              frustrated.

                              On 1/21/2013 2:26 PM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                              >
                              > Ah, the debate. Spitfire of challenging the norm. ;) Mind you I'm
                              > going to skim
                              > reply since I'm at work.
                              >
                              > Why DEFINE to 0? Because, another user might want to negate a bonus,
                              > or set up a
                              > formula and with the DEFINE always set to x instead of 0 it messes
                              > that up. So
                              > DEFINE is set up to be 0 as a common courtesy to all those who come
                              > after. Trust
                              > me, I've had to come after and was annoyed that I couldn't easily
                              > negate a
                              > DEFINE that wasn't 0. DEFINE is NOT a replacement to the TYPE which is
                              > set up
                              > to handle Stacking rules, don't use DEFINE to replace stacking rules.
                              >
                              It's unclear to me how DEFINE not being 0 messes this up. Could you
                              give me an example?

                              >
                              > DEFINE is set to a formula in one place I'm aware of, Monster DCs for
                              > things
                              > that aren't changed by feats, or special abilities. (All Poisons are
                              > 10+CON+(HD/2)) types of things.
                              >
                              Except that Monster DCs can be changed by feats; the Ability Focus feat
                              does precisely that.

                              > Now, where are these rules. Most are housed on the WIKI, under
                              > Content/Data
                              > Team. Some are found in the Class Files for building these things. One
                              > of these
                              > days when I'm not swamped, I might consolidate all the standards onto
                              > the wiki.
                              > But sadly, life keeps me busy enough that as soon as I handle one
                              > thing, two
                              > more spring up.
                              >
                              I might be able to work on this. The discussion probably belongs on the
                              main pcgen list, though.

                              DS/DL




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Eric C Smith
                              Hi Folks! A quick note on LST Standards . . . We do have a page in the docs that contains a good set of standards for LST coding and it would likely be a good
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Folks!

                                A quick note on LST Standards . . .

                                We do have a page in the docs that contains a good set of standards for LST coding and it would likely be a good place to consolidate them there. Look at the "Official Release LST standards" under "List Files" on the main index.

                                Andrew, and Barak, if you have no objection I can consolidate what is on the wiki into the docs as appropriate.

                                Maredudd

                                On Jan 21, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Andrew Maitland wrote:

                                > Ah, the debate. Spitfire of challenging the norm. ;) Mind you I'm going to skim
                                > reply since I'm at work.
                                >
                                > Why DEFINE to 0? Because, another user might want to negate a bonus, or set up a
                                > formula and with the DEFINE always set to x instead of 0 it messes that up. So
                                > DEFINE is set up to be 0 as a common courtesy to all those who come after. Trust
                                > me, I've had to come after and was annoyed that I couldn't easily negate a
                                > DEFINE that wasn't 0. DEFINE is NOT a replacement to the TYPE which is set up
                                > to handle Stacking rules, don't use DEFINE to replace stacking rules.
                                >
                                > DEFINE is set to a formula in one place I'm aware of, Monster DCs for things
                                > that aren't changed by feats, or special abilities. (All Poisons are
                                > 10+CON+(HD/2)) types of things.
                                >
                                > Your answers below are correct, but only if you aren't granting the Resistance
                                > to X ability, otherwise the Base DEFINE is already set to 0 for you.
                                >
                                > Now if there is a discrepancy in the resistance, then we should address that.
                                >
                                > Now, where are these rules. Most are housed on the WIKI, under Content/Data
                                > Team. Some are found in the Class Files for building these things. One of these
                                > days when I'm not swamped, I might consolidate all the standards onto the wiki.
                                > But sadly, life keeps me busy enough that as soon as I handle one thing, two
                                > more spring up.
                                >
                                > --
                                > Andrew
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > From: Doug Limmer adventure@...>
                                > To: PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                                > Cc: Andrew Maitland drew0500@...>
                                > Sent: Mon, January 21, 2013 10:26:32 AM
                                > Subject: Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Re: Equipment mod lst questions
                                >
                                > On 1/21/2013 11:56 AM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                                > >
                                > > No. Bad. Just NO.
                                > >
                                >
                                > Why?
                                >
                                > I've seen people set up or suggest DEFINE:X|0, BONUS:VAR|X|3 combos that
                                > would completely mess up the (no) stacking rules. Why not take
                                > advantage of the way DEFINE is set up to work?
                                >
                                > Or, if DEFINE should always be zero, why not define the tag as just
                                > DEFINE:X, and then always set X to zero, without letting a LST writer do
                                > otherwise?
                                >
                                > Are you suggesting every bonus should have a type, even if there isn't
                                > one in the source? Because that's what this seems like this requires.
                                >
                                > > You want to use the STACKING rules then use TYPE.
                                > >
                                > But don't we always want to use the stacking rules?
                                >
                                > >
                                > > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|4|TYPE=Deflection
                                > > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|2|TYPE=Deflection
                                > >
                                > > What is your deflection bonus?
                                > >
                                >
                                > Four!
                                >
                                > > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|5|TYPE=Resistance
                                > > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|15|TYPE=Resistance
                                > >
                                > > What is your Fire Resistance Bonus?
                                > >
                                > Zero! Because it hasn't been DEFINEd!
                                >
                                > > Now, what if someone did DEFINE:FireResistanceBonus|5
                                > >
                                > > What if your Fire Resistance Bonus now?
                                > >
                                > Twenty! (Is that hard?)
                                >
                                > Note that everybody that ever defines a fire resistance ability MUST use
                                > the exact same type, or combining with other abilities will fail. And
                                > that type, especially for energy resistances, is far from obvious.
                                > [Resistance bonuses are usually for saving throws.] Why not use DEFINE,
                                > when it seems to be perfectly set up to take care of that for me,
                                > without me needing to worry about what TYPE somebody else used?
                                >
                                > >
                                > > Would you like to be the one to solve the reason why your Resistance
                                > > Bonus is
                                > > wrong by 5?
                                > >
                                >
                                > I've already had to do it.
                                >
                                > >
                                > > This is why we have standards, so I can know what my results will be
                                > > every time.
                                > >
                                >
                                > Where are these standards? I've yet to find a complete list. You've
                                > mentioned a couple of places before that they're scattered between, but
                                > do any of them say "always use TYPE=Resistance when using energy
                                > resistances"? Or have list of a standard TYPEs for other kinds of
                                > variables? If they do, I haven't seen it.
                                >
                                > DS/DL
                              • FerretDave
                                Greetings, Just a thought on that - in the basics section it indicates tab should *never* be the first character... well, we ve now got an option for that
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Greetings,

                                  Just a thought on that - in the 'basics' section it indicates tab should *never* be the first character... well, we've now got an option for that for multi line definitions.

                                  The filenames bit could probably do with abilities adding too.

                                  Define as zero is already mentioned in there :-)

                                  Cheers
                                  Dave

                                  --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Eric C Smith wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hi Folks!
                                  >
                                  > A quick note on LST Standards . . .
                                  >
                                  > We do have a page in the docs that contains a good set of standards for LST coding and it would likely be a good place to consolidate them there. Look at the "Official Release LST standards" under "List Files" on the main index.
                                  >
                                  > Andrew, and Barak, if you have no objection I can consolidate what is on the wiki into the docs as appropriate.
                                  >
                                  > Maredudd
                                  >
                                  > On Jan 21, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Ah, the debate. Spitfire of challenging the norm. ;) Mind you I'm going to skim
                                  > > reply since I'm at work.
                                  > >
                                  > > Why DEFINE to 0? Because, another user might want to negate a bonus, or set up a
                                  > > formula and with the DEFINE always set to x instead of 0 it messes that up. So
                                  > > DEFINE is set up to be 0 as a common courtesy to all those who come after. Trust
                                  > > me, I've had to come after and was annoyed that I couldn't easily negate a
                                  > > DEFINE that wasn't 0. DEFINE is NOT a replacement to the TYPE which is set up
                                  > > to handle Stacking rules, don't use DEFINE to replace stacking rules.
                                  > >
                                  > > DEFINE is set to a formula in one place I'm aware of, Monster DCs for things
                                  > > that aren't changed by feats, or special abilities. (All Poisons are
                                  > > 10+CON+(HD/2)) types of things.
                                  > >
                                  > > Your answers below are correct, but only if you aren't granting the Resistance
                                  > > to X ability, otherwise the Base DEFINE is already set to 0 for you.
                                  > >
                                  > > Now if there is a discrepancy in the resistance, then we should address that.
                                  > >
                                  > > Now, where are these rules. Most are housed on the WIKI, under Content/Data
                                  > > Team. Some are found in the Class Files for building these things. One of these
                                  > > days when I'm not swamped, I might consolidate all the standards onto the wiki.
                                  > > But sadly, life keeps me busy enough that as soon as I handle one thing, two
                                  > > more spring up.
                                  > >
                                  > > --
                                  > > Andrew
                                  > >
                                  > > ________________________________
                                  > > From: Doug Limmer adventure@...>
                                  > > To: PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > Cc: Andrew Maitland drew0500@...>
                                  > > Sent: Mon, January 21, 2013 10:26:32 AM
                                  > > Subject: Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Re: Equipment mod lst questions
                                  > >
                                  > > On 1/21/2013 11:56 AM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > No. Bad. Just NO.
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Why?
                                  > >
                                  > > I've seen people set up or suggest DEFINE:X|0, BONUS:VAR|X|3 combos that
                                  > > would completely mess up the (no) stacking rules. Why not take
                                  > > advantage of the way DEFINE is set up to work?
                                  > >
                                  > > Or, if DEFINE should always be zero, why not define the tag as just
                                  > > DEFINE:X, and then always set X to zero, without letting a LST writer do
                                  > > otherwise?
                                  > >
                                  > > Are you suggesting every bonus should have a type, even if there isn't
                                  > > one in the source? Because that's what this seems like this requires.
                                  > >
                                  > > > You want to use the STACKING rules then use TYPE.
                                  > > >
                                  > > But don't we always want to use the stacking rules?
                                  > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|4|TYPE=Deflection
                                  > > > BONUS:COMBAT|AC|2|TYPE=Deflection
                                  > > >
                                  > > > What is your deflection bonus?
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Four!
                                  > >
                                  > > > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|5|TYPE=Resistance
                                  > > > BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|15|TYPE=Resistance
                                  > > >
                                  > > > What is your Fire Resistance Bonus?
                                  > > >
                                  > > Zero! Because it hasn't been DEFINEd!
                                  > >
                                  > > > Now, what if someone did DEFINE:FireResistanceBonus|5
                                  > > >
                                  > > > What if your Fire Resistance Bonus now?
                                  > > >
                                  > > Twenty! (Is that hard?)
                                  > >
                                  > > Note that everybody that ever defines a fire resistance ability MUST use
                                  > > the exact same type, or combining with other abilities will fail. And
                                  > > that type, especially for energy resistances, is far from obvious.
                                  > > [Resistance bonuses are usually for saving throws.] Why not use DEFINE,
                                  > > when it seems to be perfectly set up to take care of that for me,
                                  > > without me needing to worry about what TYPE somebody else used?
                                  > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Would you like to be the one to solve the reason why your Resistance
                                  > > > Bonus is
                                  > > > wrong by 5?
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > I've already had to do it.
                                  > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > This is why we have standards, so I can know what my results will be
                                  > > > every time.
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Where are these standards? I've yet to find a complete list. You've
                                  > > mentioned a couple of places before that they're scattered between, but
                                  > > do any of them say "always use TYPE=Resistance when using energy
                                  > > resistances"? Or have list of a standard TYPEs for other kinds of
                                  > > variables? If they do, I haven't seen it.
                                  > >
                                  > > DS/DL
                                  >
                                • Andrew
                                  Hi, I m fine with you consolidating things Eric. Also, the truth is the first line should never be a Tab, ever. The Multilines with following tabs doesn t
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi,

                                    I'm fine with you consolidating things Eric.

                                    Also, the truth is the first line should never be a Tab, ever. The Multilines with following tabs
                                    doesn't break that rule, but it's an exception to the rule. You still need a NON-Tab Thing before
                                    the tabs on subsequent lines can be used.

                                    As to explaining DEFINE. When I'm not sick, at work and trying not to fall asleep I'll be happy to
                                    go into the nitty gritty nuanced details of why DEFINE is 0 and not used for Stacking. Unless
                                    another monkey wishes to jump in and explain.

                                    While you wait, feel free to do a test for me. Let me know the result of this cause I'm curious how
                                    PCGen will end result it:

                                    In one object put:
                                    DEFINE:MonkeyFuDC|20

                                    In another Object put:
                                    BONUS:VAR|MonkeyFuDC|-5

                                    It's basic and simple. Let me know if the answer is 15, which I'm thinking us logical monkeys are
                                    expecting, or 20.

                                    Then a second test to build upon the first:
                                    BONUS:VAR|MonkeyFuDC|(-15)+((TL+1)*10)

                                    Just for kicks and giggles. Let me know the outcomes of those.

                                    (And off to another call... whee!)

                                    On 1/21/2013 2:29 PM, FerretDave wrote:
                                    > Greetings,
                                    >
                                    > Just a thought on that - in the 'basics' section it indicates tab should *never* be the first character... well, we've now got an option for that for multi line definitions.
                                    >
                                    > The filenames bit could probably do with abilities adding too.
                                    >
                                    > Define as zero is already mentioned in there :-)
                                    >
                                    > Cheers
                                    > Dave
                                    >
                                    > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Eric C Smith wrote:
                                    >> Hi Folks!
                                    >>
                                    >> A quick note on LST Standards . . .
                                    >>
                                    >> We do have a page in the docs that contains a good set of standards for LST coding and it would likely be a good place to consolidate them there. Look at the "Official Release LST standards" under "List Files" on the main index.
                                    >>
                                    >> Andrew, and Barak, if you have no objection I can consolidate what is on the wiki into the docs as appropriate.
                                    >>
                                    >> Maredudd
                                    >>
                                    >> On Jan 21, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                                    >>
                                    >>> Ah, the debate. Spitfire of challenging the norm. ;) Mind you I'm going to skim
                                    >>> reply since I'm at work.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Why DEFINE to 0? Because, another user might want to negate a bonus, or set up a
                                    >>> formula and with the DEFINE always set to x instead of 0 it messes that up. So
                                    >>> DEFINE is set up to be 0 as a common courtesy to all those who come after. Trust
                                    >>> me, I've had to come after and was annoyed that I couldn't easily negate a
                                    >>> DEFINE that wasn't 0. DEFINE is NOT a replacement to the TYPE which is set up
                                    >>> to handle Stacking rules, don't use DEFINE to replace stacking rules.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> DEFINE is set to a formula in one place I'm aware of, Monster DCs for things
                                    >>> that aren't changed by feats, or special abilities. (All Poisons are
                                    >>> 10+CON+(HD/2)) types of things.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Your answers below are correct, but only if you aren't granting the Resistance
                                    >>> to X ability, otherwise the Base DEFINE is already set to 0 for you.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Now if there is a discrepancy in the resistance, then we should address that.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Now, where are these rules. Most are housed on the WIKI, under Content/Data
                                    >>> Team. Some are found in the Class Files for building these things. One of these
                                    >>> days when I'm not swamped, I might consolidate all the standards onto the wiki.
                                    >>> But sadly, life keeps me busy enough that as soon as I handle one thing, two
                                    >>> more spring up.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> --
                                    >>> Andrew
                                    >>>
                                    >>> ________________________________
                                    >>> From: Doug Limmer adventure@...>
                                    >>> To: PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
                                    >>> Cc: Andrew Maitland drew0500@...>
                                    >>> Sent: Mon, January 21, 2013 10:26:32 AM
                                    >>> Subject: Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Re: Equipment mod lst questions
                                    >>>
                                    >>> On 1/21/2013 11:56 AM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                                    >>>> No. Bad. Just NO.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>> Why?
                                    >>>
                                    >>> I've seen people set up or suggest DEFINE:X|0, BONUS:VAR|X|3 combos that
                                    >>> would completely mess up the (no) stacking rules. Why not take
                                    >>> advantage of the way DEFINE is set up to work?
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Or, if DEFINE should always be zero, why not define the tag as just
                                    >>> DEFINE:X, and then always set X to zero, without letting a LST writer do
                                    >>> otherwise?
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Are you suggesting every bonus should have a type, even if there isn't
                                    >>> one in the source? Because that's what this seems like this requires.
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> You want to use the STACKING rules then use TYPE.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>> But don't we always want to use the stacking rules?
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> BONUS:COMBAT|AC|4|TYPE=Deflection
                                    >>>> BONUS:COMBAT|AC|2|TYPE=Deflection
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> What is your deflection bonus?
                                    >>>>
                                    >>> Four!
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|5|TYPE=Resistance
                                    >>>> BONUS:VAR|FireResistanceBonus|15|TYPE=Resistance
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> What is your Fire Resistance Bonus?
                                    >>>>
                                    >>> Zero! Because it hasn't been DEFINEd!
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> Now, what if someone did DEFINE:FireResistanceBonus|5
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> What if your Fire Resistance Bonus now?
                                    >>>>
                                    >>> Twenty! (Is that hard?)
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Note that everybody that ever defines a fire resistance ability MUST use
                                    >>> the exact same type, or combining with other abilities will fail. And
                                    >>> that type, especially for energy resistances, is far from obvious.
                                    >>> [Resistance bonuses are usually for saving throws.] Why not use DEFINE,
                                    >>> when it seems to be perfectly set up to take care of that for me,
                                    >>> without me needing to worry about what TYPE somebody else used?
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> Would you like to be the one to solve the reason why your Resistance
                                    >>>> Bonus is
                                    >>>> wrong by 5?
                                    >>>>
                                    >>> I've already had to do it.
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> This is why we have standards, so I can know what my results will be
                                    >>>> every time.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>> Where are these standards? I've yet to find a complete list. You've
                                    >>> mentioned a couple of places before that they're scattered between, but
                                    >>> do any of them say "always use TYPE=Resistance when using energy
                                    >>> resistances"? Or have list of a standard TYPEs for other kinds of
                                    >>> variables? If they do, I haven't seen it.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> DS/DL
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >

                                    --
                                    Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
                                    Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
                                    Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
                                    Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
                                    Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Barak
                                    As Tom pointed out, if you have DEFINE:Foo|1 and DEFINE :Foo|2 (in two different sources)... which one takes precedence? They re not additive, one or the
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      As Tom pointed out, if you have DEFINE:Foo|1 and DEFINE :Foo|2 (in two
                                      different sources)... which one takes precedence? They're not additive,
                                      one or the other will be used and its hard to know/control which.

                                      So we.define them to 0 to make life easy.
                                      On Jan 21, 2013 4:07 PM, "Doug Limmer" <adventure@...> wrote:

                                      > **
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > I apologize if I sound like I'm attacking you; I'm just confused and
                                      > frustrated.
                                      >
                                      > On 1/21/2013 2:26 PM, Andrew Maitland wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > Ah, the debate. Spitfire of challenging the norm. ;) Mind you I'm
                                      > > going to skim
                                      > > reply since I'm at work.
                                      > >
                                      > > Why DEFINE to 0? Because, another user might want to negate a bonus,
                                      > > or set up a
                                      > > formula and with the DEFINE always set to x instead of 0 it messes
                                      > > that up. So
                                      > > DEFINE is set up to be 0 as a common courtesy to all those who come
                                      > > after. Trust
                                      > > me, I've had to come after and was annoyed that I couldn't easily
                                      > > negate a
                                      > > DEFINE that wasn't 0. DEFINE is NOT a replacement to the TYPE which is
                                      > > set up
                                      > > to handle Stacking rules, don't use DEFINE to replace stacking rules.
                                      > >
                                      > It's unclear to me how DEFINE not being 0 messes this up. Could you
                                      > give me an example?
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      > > DEFINE is set to a formula in one place I'm aware of, Monster DCs for
                                      > > things
                                      > > that aren't changed by feats, or special abilities. (All Poisons are
                                      > > 10+CON+(HD/2)) types of things.
                                      > >
                                      > Except that Monster DCs can be changed by feats; the Ability Focus feat
                                      > does precisely that.
                                      >
                                      > > Now, where are these rules. Most are housed on the WIKI, under
                                      > > Content/Data
                                      > > Team. Some are found in the Class Files for building these things. One
                                      > > of these
                                      > > days when I'm not swamped, I might consolidate all the standards onto
                                      > > the wiki.
                                      > > But sadly, life keeps me busy enough that as soon as I handle one
                                      > > thing, two
                                      > > more spring up.
                                      > >
                                      > I might be able to work on this. The discussion probably belongs on the
                                      > main pcgen list, though.
                                      >
                                      > DS/DL
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Doug Limmer
                                      ... The docs say the larger one is used. Is this incorrect? DS/DL
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On 1/21/2013 6:15 PM, Barak wrote:
                                        > As Tom pointed out, if you have DEFINE:Foo|1 and DEFINE :Foo|2 (in two
                                        > different sources)... which one takes precedence? They're not additive,
                                        > one or the other will be used and its hard to know/control which.
                                        The docs say the larger one is used. Is this incorrect?

                                        DS/DL
                                      • thpr
                                        ... The docs are correct.
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, Doug Limmer wrote:
                                          >
                                          > On 1/21/2013 6:15 PM, Barak wrote:
                                          > > As Tom pointed out, if you have DEFINE:Foo|1 and DEFINE :Foo|2 (in two
                                          > > different sources)... which one takes precedence? They're not additive,
                                          > > one or the other will be used and its hard to know/control which.
                                          > The docs say the larger one is used. Is this incorrect?
                                          >
                                          > DS/DL
                                          >

                                          The docs are correct.
                                        • Doug Limmer
                                          ... Here are the results. [Done in Pathfinder, in 6.0.0. Windows 7, if it makes a difference.] Defined 3 feats: Monkey Define TYPE:General DESC:Your monkey
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jan 26, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On 1/21/2013 6:02 PM, Andrew wrote:
                                            >
                                            > While you wait, feel free to do a test for me. Let me know the result
                                            > of this cause I'm curious how
                                            > PCGen will end result it:
                                            >
                                            > In one object put:
                                            > DEFINE:MonkeyFuDC|20
                                            >
                                            > In another Object put:
                                            > BONUS:VAR|MonkeyFuDC|-5
                                            >
                                            > It's basic and simple. Let me know if the answer is 15, which I'm
                                            > thinking us logical monkeys are
                                            > expecting, or 20.
                                            >
                                            > Then a second test to build upon the first:
                                            > BONUS:VAR|MonkeyFuDC|(-15)+((TL+1)*10)
                                            >
                                            > Just for kicks and giggles. Let me know the outcomes of those.
                                            >

                                            Here are the results. [Done in Pathfinder, in 6.0.0. Windows 7, if it
                                            makes a difference.]

                                            Defined 3 feats:
                                            Monkey Define
                                            TYPE:General
                                            DESC:Your monkey fu DC: %1|MonkeyFuDC
                                            DEFINE:MonkeyFuDC|20
                                            Monkey Bonus Flat
                                            TYPE:General
                                            DESC:Flat Bonus monkey Fu DC: %1|MonkeyFuDC
                                            BONUS:VAR|MonkeyFuDC|-5
                                            Monkey Bonus Level
                                            TYPE:General
                                            DESC:Level Bonus monkey Fu DC: %1|MonkeyFuDC
                                            BONUS:VAR|MonkeyFuDC|(-15)+((TL+1)*10)

                                            Made a 1st-level dwarf fighter. Gave it the Monkey Define feat.
                                            Displayed value: 20
                                            Leveled up to 3rd level (getting another feat). Gave it the Monkey
                                            Bonus Flat feat. Displayed value: 15
                                            Took off the Monkey Bonus Flat feat, added the Monkey Bonus Level feat.
                                            Displayed value: 45
                                            Leveled up to 4th level. Displayed value: 55
                                            Leveled up to 5th level (getting another feat). Displayed value: 65
                                            Gave it the Monkey Bonus Flat feat. Displayed value: 60
                                            Took off the Monkey Bonus Level feat. Displayed value: 15
                                            Took off the Monkey Bonus Flat feat. Displayed value: 20
                                            Added the Monkey Bonus Flat feat. Displayed value: 15
                                            Added the Monkey Bonus Level feat. Displayed value: 60

                                            The displayed value was always the same between all three feats.

                                            It seems like it's all working as I would expect. Is there something
                                            else to watch out for? Should I upload the PCC and LST files, for
                                            others to double-check?

                                            DS/DL


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.