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

Re: [cw] SRD 3.5 - Need Help with Special Abilities (PLayers Handbook II again)

Expand Messages
  • Michael Sprague
    Thanks much again!! Sorry about the fact you didn t have my files (and you can have them, if you want them :-). I didn t throw that last requirement in,
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 12, 2007
      Thanks much again!!  Sorry about the fact you didn't have my files (and you can have them, if you want them :-).  I didn't throw that last requirement in, until I saw your suggested solution and saw how it worked.
      As for the logical NOT ... your example was actually my first thought, but after reading the help file, I didn't even try it.  I'll know better next time.
      I assume that if I want to complicate this, by accounting for the character's INT for Spell Levels, all I need to do is put some IF/ELSEIF statements around the two lines (in each case), making sure that the contents within each are based on max for INT?  No need to respond to this, unless I'm off base.
      ~ Mike

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Support <bkvam@...>
      To: cw@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:57:46 PM
      Subject: Re: [cw] SRD 3.5 - Need Help with Special Abilities (PLayers Handbook II again)

      Michael Sprague wrote:

      However, even this did not really work as expected.  The Beguiler shares many spells in the Sor/Wiz category.  What was displayed in the selection were only the "Sor/Wiz" Spells that were also "Bgl" Spells.  Specifically, Magic Aura and Ventriloquism, which are not Beguiler spells, were not displayed.
      Sorry, I neglected to include the directive to turn off selection rules (which I'd done manually when testing). Put this before your choose directives:
      ?applyrules: 0
       In addition, what I would really like, is to constrain this to displaying only Sor/Wiz spells that are not also Begiler (Bgl) spells.  After checking out the help file, I tried out the following, but it made no difference.
          ?selexp:incategory( 'Enchantment| Illusion' ) and incategory( 'Sor/Wiz 1|Sor/Wiz 0; !Bgl 1' );
      I didn't have any of your data to work with, so I couldn't see this behavior. This is probably the most straightforward way of stating it:
      ?selexp:incategory( 'Enchantment| Illusion' ) and incategory(' Sor/Wiz 1|Sor/Wiz 0') and !incategory( 'Bgl 1');
      I also note in the help file for "incategory( )" that double quotes (") were used instead of single (') ones, as in the example.  I take it, this does not matter?  After playing with it, both seemed to work the same.
      Single and double quotes can generally be used interchangeably in expressions. Certain commands in macro invocations require the use of double quotes.
      I see that the spell level is not set.  I was never prompted to select a level, rather, when I opened spells, it just went to the correct Beguiler level of the spell.  Since the Enchantment/ Illusion spells which are not Beguiler spells are not visible to select, I do not know how this would work with them.
      That's because you had something defined for Beguilers. Not having your data, I didn't see this behavior. If you turn off selection rules with what you have right now you'll see what happens.

      No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
      with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.