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

Re: [PCGenListFileHelp] Re: Equipment mod lst questions

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
      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 2 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
        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 3 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
          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 4 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
            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 5 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
              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 6 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                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 7 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                  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 8 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                    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 9 of 25 , Jan 21, 2013
                      --- 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 10 of 25 , Jan 26, 2013
                        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.